# I want pre-built binaries for ... ![[everyone.gif]] --- # I have a story ... --- # Claude Desktop extensions https://github.com/anthropics/mcpb --- ```shell uv run ``` --- # python-build-standalone https://github.com/astral-sh/python-build-standalone --- # What doing this ourselves gets us - Lets us set a baseline experience (e.g. Debian and `venv`) - Lowers risks for the community if something were to happen to Astral - Makes sure there are builds as trusted as python.org --- # What this might look like - Aim for supporting a developer workflow - OS providers and python-build-standalone can provide more performance builds - Tier 1: platforms: required - Tier 2: could require, or at least strongly encourage - Tier 3: optional --- # We should have some help - Astral have said they want to upstream stuff - Jannis from (Ana)conda/PSF User Success WG supports this idea --- # ❓ [^1] ## Should we have more pre-built binaries? --- # Owning more of the UX --- # Installer CLI - Already happening on Windows w/ `py`/`pymanager` - With bre-built binaries we could make this a thing on all supported OSs --- # People are using `python3` less - People are using `uv`, `hatch`, and `PDM` as their access point to Python - `pipx` and these tools provide an easy way to run CLI tools from PyPI --- # A tool to run Python code ## NOT "Python to run Python code" The interpreter is an implementation detail --- ## `py` for everyone - Find Python on my machine and run it - Create virtual environments easily and automatically - Install Python on my machine as needed - Support inline script metadata to easily run scripts - Install from a `pylock.toml` or `pyproject.toml` --- # ❓ [^2] ## Are we okay giving the UX around Python over to 3rd-party tools? Or do we want to have a baseline experience that we control? [^1]: If you can get it to work and everyone agreeing. 😅 [^2]: Mixed, so probably just go with my own ideas for [[Python Launcher for Unix]] and see how it goes.