30 years later I still love programming but people given authority opting for cutesy names for critically important terms in the ecosystem should be severely limited in their options.<p>Flakes, pills, wheels, eggs... Come on, people. I am willing to bet good money that it won't hurt you physically if you just call them "packages".
For people who are confused by this:<p>"Wheel has an official standard specification. Egg did not.
Wheel is a distribution format, i.e a packaging format. 1 Egg was both a distribution format and a runtime installation format (if left zipped), and was designed to be importable.<p>Wheel archives do not include .pyc files." [1]<p>[1] <a href="https://packaging.python.org/discussions/wheel-vs-egg/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://packaging.python.org/discussions/wheel-vs-egg/</a>
How someone not intimately involved with the ecosystem would figure out all this is beyond me.<p>There’s probably a blog post somewhere, but Python.org isn’t super helpful when you’re trying to find the equivalent of `cargo run`.
Is it possible to publish Python code for others to use simply by putting a repo on a webserver?<p>In other words, can someone put a line like this into their requirements.txt file?<p><a href="https://somewhere.com/some/git/repo.git" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://somewhere.com/some/git/repo.git</a>
The three that are not wheels are distributed as source tarballs only -- one is AWS Sagemaker that looks like it uses a bunch of native code, one is Apache Spark, and one is futures.<p>I think the news here is that there are no packages in the top N that are using an alternate packaging system without using wheel as well. (alternates being msi, exe, or egg)