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_

首先阅读讨论中提到的 py_console_script_binary、py_binary 以及 entrypoints/scripts/things-in-bin 相关引用。跟踪当前完整的 runfiles 树和独立 venv 的使用方式，然后明确同一 venv 中脚本所需的 provider 和 consumer 行为。完成的标准是：记录这些用例，以及一套经过 соглас соглас? 通过 py_binary 使这些入口点可用的共识设计。

由索引模型根据 Issue 内容生成。