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_

まず、議論で言及されている py_console_script_binary、py_binary、および entrypoints/scripts/things-in-bin の参照を読みます。現在の完全な runfiles ツリーと分離された venv がどのように使われているかを追跡し、同じ venv 内のスクリプトに必要な provider と consumer の動作を明確にします。これらのエントリポイントを py_binary 経由で利用可能にするためのユースケースと合意済みの設計が文書化されれば完了です。

索引モデルが issue の本文から書いたものです。