Re: Dealing with flit -- a simplified packaging of python modules

[Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au>]

Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> writes:

> On September 25, 2015 at 7:24:30 PM, Paul Wise (pabs@debian.org) wrote:
> > Why are end users using source packages instead of binary packages
> > and then complaining that the source tarballs aren't ready-to-run
> > binary packages?
>
> Because the way Python packaging currently is and historically has
> been, binary packages are not something that is widely available or
> viable.

So, commendable effort has gone toward making that problem reduce,
perhaps eventually to go away. Congratulations are deserved for getting
us this far, and thanks for continuing to push for feasible binary
distributions of Python packages on all supported OSen.

It seems reasonable, then, to also put effort toward making source
distributions more targeted toward being bundles of the released
*source* for the project version, and reducing the justification for
bundling non-source files in the source distribution.

Can we expect the value of “but people expect non-source stuff bundled
in the source distrubution” to diminish, as some kind of objection to
making proper source distributions?

-- 
 \        “If we ruin the Earth, there is no place else to go. This is |
  `\    not a disposable world, and we are not yet able to re-engineer |
_o__)                      other planets.” —Carl Sagan, _Cosmos_, 1980 |
Ben Finney