source code distribution #2556
Replies: 2 comments
-
|
Hi Rami, Thanks for raising this issue and for highlighting the value of distributing RuFaS through a Python packaging registry like PyPI. We agree that PyPI packaging can lower barriers for third-party developers, improve dependency management, and potentially broaden adoption. At this stage, however, RuFaS is still evolving rapidly. The interfaces and core components are undergoing active development, and maintaining a PyPI distribution would add additional overhead in terms of release management, versioning, and long-term support expectations. Given the scientific complexity of the project; where full functionality depends on datasets, configurations, and evolving modules; distributing via GitHub remains the most flexible approach for both developers and users. That said, we see the value in PyPI packaging for the future. As the project stabilizes, particularly for components like the Input/Output managers or other reusable modules, we may revisit the idea of publishing on PyPI or another packaging channel. For now, we’ll continue providing releases directly on GitHub, but we’ll keep this discussion in mind as we move toward more stable versions of RuFaS. Thanks again for your thoughtful suggestion! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Hi Pooya, |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Dear RuFaS team,
Are you planning to distribute the source code to any pyhton packaging registry (especially PyPI)? This would be valuable for third-party users who would like to build upon RuFaS's code without having to include all the source code in their own scripts.
Best,
Rami
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions