Steven Bethard <steven.beth...@gmail.com> added the comment:
The original docs request was for a rationale for using bdist_msi
instead of bdist_wininst, but you're right there should be something at
least a little specification-y. And we probably want to keep it pretty
short, so maybe something like::
.. class: distutils.command.build_bdist_msi.bdist_msi(Command)
Builds a `Microsoft Installer`_ (.msi) binary package.
.. _Microsoft Installer:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc185688(VS.85).aspx
In most cases, the bdist_msi installer is a better choice than the
bdist_wininst installer, because it provides better support for
Win64 platforms, allows administrators to perform non-interactive
installations, and allows installation through group policies.
I'm on the fence as to whether or not to include the URL to the MSI
info. That's probably as close to a specification as we can get, but
it's probably unnecessary for 99% of the people who might read the
bdist_msi docs.
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue5563>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
