On Thursday, May 15, 2014 18:32:01 Barry Warsaw wrote: > My thoughts... > > On May 16, 2014, at 12:07 AM, Matthias Klose wrote: > > - should we add wheels everywhere? I don't think we should, > > > > but I'd like to state this somewhere, like in the python policy. > > Agreed, we should not add wheels everywhere. I would like to keep it very > limited to exactly the (small) set of packages we need to devendorize > ensurepip, recursively. If some other devendorizing task in the future > requires the use of wheels, then we have a framework in place, but I would > like to actively discourage their use. > > I do plan to propose an update to policy stating this, but I haven't gotten > to that yet. I will of course post the proposed update here first. > > > - where to put wheels? /usr/share/python-wheels is an ad-hoc > > > > decision which was never proposed. I'm aware about "universal" > > wheels but I'd like to clarify where wheels should be located. > > Do we need /usr/share/python/wheels, and/or /usr/share/python3/wheels? > > I proposed /usr/share/python-wheels here: > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2014/05/msg00025.html > > but it's a detail that was probably easily lost in the wall of text. I > didn't see any objections to that specifically though. We could change it > if something clearly better is proposed, although it would necessitate some > new uploads and updated quilt patches. > > For the current use case, we only need pure-Python wheels, and in fact > Python can't currently import extension modules from zips, so architecture > dependent wheels wouldn't work anyway. Universal wheels (Python 2 and 3 > compatible) are used because that's what the ensurepip machinery already > uses. it's just as easy to create universal wheels, and all the packages > we currently care about *are* bilingual, so using them here reduces the > upstream delta. Since I don't view the building of wheel packages as > general purpose, I think it's fine to just put them in a shared directory. > > In other words, non-universal wheels YAGNI. > > > - naming of wheel packages. It's good to see wheels packaged > > > > in a separate binary package. However there is no proposal > > how to name these packages. > > That was also proposed in the above referenced message. Suggestions > welcome, but I think python-foo-wheels is as good as anything (it's pretty > self-descriptive ;). > > Cheers, > -Barry
Shouldn't it be singular? Each package provides a wheel, not several wheels (and I'd name the location the same for consistency). Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1610808.nZOgGCl3Ee@scott-latitude-e6320
