[Discussion] Ship the single-file build as a PyPI extra or a separate release asset?

Context

adpentest_onefile.py (11,489 lines, 479 KB) exposes the full public API in one importable module. Useful for:

• Drop-in usage inside restricted environments (no pip)
• Embedding in incident-response toolkits carried on USB
• Running from a single python3 file.py-style entrypoint

Question

Where should it live?

Options

1. Repo root only (today) — user clones the repo to get it. Simple, no packaging change.
2. GitHub Release asset — attached to each v* tag automatically (#40). Downloadable without cloning.
3. PyPI extra — pip install adpentest[onefile] copies it to a known location. Unusual; PyPI is for packages, not single files.
4. Separate PyPI package adpentest-single — mirrors the pattern used by black/ruff bundles. More release overhead.

Concerns

• If we ship it via GitHub Release, we need CI (#40) to guarantee it matches the tagged core
• Consumers of the onefile lose python -m adpentest — do we need to add an if __name__ == "__main__": raise SystemExit(main()) block?
• License/attribution stays MIT either way

Preferences?

Review adpentest_onefile.py and the four distribution options, then inspect CI issue #40 and the existing python -m adpentest entrypoint. The discussion needs a decision on where the single-file build should ship and whether standalone execution is required; done means one option is selected with its release and packaging requirements recorded.