# 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`)
- De-risks if something were to happen to Astral
- Makes sure there are builds as trusted as python.org
---
# What this might look like
- Aim for a developer workflow
- OS providers and python-build-standalone can provide more performant builds
- Tier 1: platforms: required
- Tier 2: could require, or at least strongly encourage
- Tier 3: optional
---
# We should have some help
- Astral has said they want to upstream stuff
- Jannis from (Ana)conda/PSF board wants to help
---
# ❓
## Should we have 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 moving away from `python3`
- 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 for most
---
## `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`
---
# ❓
## Are we okay giving up control of the UX around Python entirely to 3rd-party tools?
Or do we want to have a baseline experience that we control?