distlib
Distribution utilities
This package has a good security score with no known vulnerabilities.
Community Reviews
Low-level packaging utilities - functional but minimal operational support
No built-in logging hooks or structured error messages make debugging painful when things go wrong - you'll often get generic exceptions without context about which package or file caused issues. Memory usage is reasonable for typical operations, but there's no connection pooling or resource management for remote operations; you're expected to handle that yourself. Timeout handling is essentially non-existent - wrap everything in your own timeout logic if dealing with network resources.
Configuration is minimal, which can be good or bad depending on your needs. The library is stable (few breaking changes), but it feels like infrastructure plumbing rather than a production-ready tool. Fine for internal tooling where you can wrap it properly, but I'd look elsewhere for anything customer-facing or high-stakes.
Best for: Internal tooling or build systems where you can wrap the library with proper error handling and observability
Avoid if: You need production-ready package management with built-in resilience, logging, and error recovery for customer-facing services
Low-level packaging utilities with security concerns for modern projects
From a security perspective, distlib has concerning patterns. Input validation when parsing untrusted package metadata is basic - it will parse malformed data without strict validation. The library doesn't follow secure-by-default principles when extracting archives or handling package resources. Error messages sometimes expose full file paths which could leak system information. There's no built-in protection against path traversal when working with wheel files or archives, requiring developers to implement their own safety checks.
The dependency footprint is minimal (essentially stdlib-only), which reduces supply chain risk. However, CVE response has been slow historically, and the library doesn't actively warn about unsafe operations. For production systems handling untrusted packages, you'll need additional validation layers.
Best for: Building internal packaging tools where you control all inputs and need low-level distribution utilities.
Avoid if: You're processing untrusted packages or need security-hardened parsing without implementing extensive validation yourself.
Low-level packaging utilities with sparse docs and steep learning curve
The documentation exists but lacks practical examples and context for common workflows. You'll find yourself frequently jumping between the module reference and source code to figure out how components fit together. Error messages tend to be generic Python exceptions without helpful context about what went wrong in the distribution processing pipeline.
IDE support is limited due to sparse type annotations. While the library is stable and handles edge cases in package metadata well, the ergonomics make it feel like infrastructure from an earlier Python era. If you're building packaging tools and need low-level control, it's serviceable, but expect to spend time understanding implementation details rather than following clear patterns.
Best for: Building low-level packaging tools that need direct control over wheel manipulation and metadata parsing.
Avoid if: You're looking for a high-level, well-documented API for application-level package management tasks.
Sign in to write a review
Sign In