On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Donald Stufft <donald(a)stufft.io> wrote:
> On Nov 17, 2015, at 7:54 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 17 November 2015 at 22:05, Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> and
>> I wanted to give the Python SIG in Fedora the opportunity to try it
>> out and see if we might want to enable it in Fedora.
>>
>> Essentially, for things that have egg info that includes the
>> requirements and the name of the module, it makes it simpler to figure
>> out what how to install Python packages in a more cross-distro manner.
>
> Having a plugin to automatically generate appropriate upstream
> Provides/Requires to allow installation based on PyPI distribution
> names definitely has the potential to be useful. It was only the
> choice of "python2egg" and "python3egg" as the name that threw
me,
> since that doesn't align with the upstream community terminology (the
> egg format is specific to setuptools and easy_install)
This sounds like it’s actually use the “other” Egg (because for maximum
confusion setuptools eggs are actually like 3 different things). Right now
both distutils and setuptools will generate an egg-info metadata when
installing projects (though distutils generates a file and setuptools a
directory). However wheels install a dist-info directory.
I don’t have a better suggestion for name other than I’d prefer not to bake
more things onto the “egg” terminology since we (Python packaging upstream)
are trying to phase it out.
Is the format inside of the .dist-info directory the same as the older
.egg-info and .egg-link directories? If so, it should be easy to add
to read that information too.
As for naming, I'm all ears for a better name, because if the "egg"
name is going away, I'd rather it not continue to say that.
--
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!