[adding in disutils-sig and leaving this message intact as that's where
it belongs]
Paul Moore wrote:
> 2009/10/20 Ian Bicking <
ianb@...>:
>> FWIW, I don't think there's a real conflict here. My understanding is
>> that wininst installers can be treated as installable packages that
>> don't *have* to go through the system package manager, so they are
>> both installable system-wide and installable much like an egg or
>> tarball is (you can't drop the wininst installer into the path
>> directly like you can an egg, but that doesn't seem to be a
>> widely-held goal).
>
> The conflict lies in the fact that I want the features that
> bdist_wininst installers give me (integration with add/remove programs
> and uninstallation) [1]. If every project offers a bdist_wininst
> installer, I'm happy. But Chris isn't unless they provide his
> preferred format (I'm not sure if Chris has a concrete suggestion, or
> he's just speculating at the moment) as well.
Huh? I don't really care how packages are installed, provided they end
up in a consistent format on disk. I'm not sure how a bdist_wininst
installer is going to make sure a package's dependencies are met though...
> I'm assuming (based on experience with eggs) that projects won't
> routinely provide all possible formats. Hence my contention that a
> single format is necessary.
>
> Having multiple package management systems that consume that format is
> fine by me. But easy_install can consume bdist_wininst installers, so
> the evidence is that there's more needed for a single format to emerge
> than has been done so far (otherwise why isn't bdist_wininst that
> single format right now?)
Because not everyone runs on Windows?
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Batch Processing & Python Consulting
-
http://www.simplistix.co.uk_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist -
Distutils-SIG@...
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
