To be honest I don’t consider this as a real problem. Every team that uses Panda has a programmer, and every programmer can write a small script which joins packp3d and pdeploy (if they want that really). Moreover, almost every project is built by a build-system (like SCons, CMake, …), so you’ll never invoke packp3d and pdeploy manually (i.e. tipically you already have that script which joins them), so I don’t see this breaking down as a problem in a real context. Vice versa, I see this as a great advantage, because you get a platform-independent package (p3d) before in the process and you get the platform-specific stuff only at the end of the build pipeline if you haven’t platform-specific code (this can be exploited in several ways, depending on your build pipeline, your testing strategies, …).
Anyway I don’t want to criticize your approach (I only wanted to highlight that point since I consider it “weak”), it’s a lower-level approach (so it has its pros and cons), it’s a contribution and somebody could find it useful, so thank you! 