PEP 665: point out why relying on wheels is a good thing
This commit is contained in:
parent
c088d64ecb
commit
e4d35d7f32
10
pep-0665.rst
10
pep-0665.rst
|
@ -88,6 +88,16 @@ attempting to slip nefarious code into your application (i.e. some
|
|||
supply chain attacks). By making a lock file which always leads to
|
||||
reproducible installs, we can avoid certain risks entirely.
|
||||
|
||||
Four, relying on wheels provides reproducibility without requiring
|
||||
build tools to support reproducibility as well. Thanks to wheels being
|
||||
static and not executing code as part of installation, wheels always
|
||||
lead to a reproducible result. Compare this to source distributions
|
||||
(aka sdists) or source trees which only lead to a reproducible install
|
||||
if their build tool supports reproducibility due to inherent code
|
||||
execution. Unfortunately the vast majority of build tools do not
|
||||
support reproducible builds, so this PEP helps alleviate that issue
|
||||
by only relying on wheels.
|
||||
|
||||
This PEP proposes a standard for a lock file, as the current solutions
|
||||
don't meet the outlined goals. Today, the closest we come to a lock
|
||||
file standard is the `requirements file format`_ from pip.
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue