On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 5:51:48 AM UTC-4, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
> On 5 October 2015 at 20:43, Tim wrote:
> >
> > I have a package I want to share but have a question about packaging.
> >
> > Mostly the package is pure python code, but it also requires some binary
> > libraries (*.so, *.dll
On 5 October 2015 at 20:43, Tim wrote:
>
> I have a package I want to share but have a question about packaging.
>
> Mostly the package is pure python code, but it also requires some binary
> libraries (*.so, *.dll, *.dylib). I want to bundle these libs so users don't
> have to compile. The pac
On 05/10/2015 20:43, Tim wrote:
> I have a package I want to share but have a question about packaging.
>
> Mostly the package is pure python code, but it also requires some binary
> libraries (*.so, *.dll, *.dylib). I want to bundle these libs so users don't
> have to compile. The package will
On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 1:14:05 AM UTC+5:30, Tim wrote:
> And that seems to work, but after reading more from the Python Packaging
> Authority, I wonder if that is the right way. Should I be using wheels
> instead?
> I think my brain fried a little bit while going through the doc.
You
I have a package I want to share but have a question about packaging.
Mostly the package is pure python code, but it also requires some binary
libraries (*.so, *.dll, *.dylib). I want to bundle these libs so users don't
have to compile. The package will run on *nix/windows/mac platforms.
Curre
