# Upcoming changes in the pypa/wheel project

**URL:** <https://discuss.python.org/t/upcoming-changes-in-the-pypa-wheel-project/85967>\
**Category:** Packaging\
**Created:** [March 26, 2025, 1:46am UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/upcoming-changes-in-the-pypa-wheel-project/85967 "2025-03-26T01:46:35Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 12

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![steve.dower](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/steve.dower/32/56_2.png) [@steve.dower](https://discuss.python.org/u/steve.dower)\
**Post date:** [March 26, 2025, 3:51pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/upcoming-changes-in-the-pypa-wheel-project/85967/12 "2025-03-26T15:51:28Z")

</div>

> [@agronholm](#):
>
> > Is switching to `from setuptools.command.bdist_wheel import bdist_wheel` a valid replacement or is that just someone else’s private API?
> 
> It’s as valid as it has been for as long as I can remember.

Yes, but it’s only a viable option for the _author_ of the package, not the person who’s suddenly failing to install it. And while everyone waits for the author to make a new release (which is hopefully compatible enough with the release users were using to do the upgrade…), they’ll come to _your_ issue tracker to complain about it.

There are a few tricks you can use to have a `wheel.bdist_wheel` that just imports `setuptools` to get the implementation. Using any of them is a small price to pay for not upsetting users, in the overall scheme of things.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.python.org/t/upcoming-changes-in-the-pypa-wheel-project/85967)._