Discuss how the venv layout could facilitate entry points

> Currently the py_console_script_binary is building a full runfiles tree and for the usecase that you are implementing in here - a py_binary is just calling utilities within the same venv that is a little bit too heavy. I want to separate the usecases for py_console_script_binary to be only something where we actually want to build a full separate venv for the said scripts.

Ah, I think I get what you mean. Do you want to file an issue for further discussion? entrypoints/scripts/things-in-bin seem distinct enough they warrant _something_ in a provider, but it's not clear to me how a consumer can make effective use of it via a py_binary.

_Originally posted by @rickeylev in https://github.com/bazel-contrib/rules_python/issues/3743#issuecomment-4345478121_

Empieza leyendo py_console_script_binary, py_binary y las referencias a entrypoints/scripts/things-in-bin mencionadas en la discusión. Traza cómo se usan actualmente el árbol completo de runfiles y la venv independiente, y después aclara el comportamiento necesario del provider y el consumer para los scripts dentro de la misma venv. Se considerará terminado cuando estén documentados los casos de uso y un diseño acordado para hacer utilizables esos puntos de entrada mediante py_binary.

Escrito por el modelo de indexación a partir del texto del issue.