Re: paster shebang line
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 22:00 -0700, Mike Orr wrote: On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Cliff Wells [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The method I've been using is documented here: http://peak.telecommunity.com/DevCenter/EasyInstall#administrator-installation I'd like to add, that except for this one problem I've encountered, it's worked quite well for a few years now. I see virtualenv as solving a problem that was already solved by setuptools itself quite some time ago. This is going to be another of those dumb users issues we clashed about before. Not especially. I'm going to dodge it since it's clear you care about it far more than I do =) Virtualenv, although it's not part of the stdlib, is straightforward and self-contained. You don't have to modify the system Python library to use it, so I don't see why you consider it incompatible with your old environment. It is incompatible for one simple reason: these are existing applications. It's simply not feasible to reinstall a customer's application with no tangible benefit to them. Most of them don't care it's written in Python, let alone that it's not using virtualenv. They won't appreciate the upgrade and they certainly won't pay for it. So more or less, it's an exercise in busy work. Regards, Cliff --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: paster shebang line
On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 22:00 -0700, Mike Orr wrote: On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Cliff Wells [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The method I've been using is documented here: http://peak.telecommunity.com/DevCenter/EasyInstall#administrator-installation I'd like to add, that except for this one problem I've encountered, it's worked quite well for a few years now. I see virtualenv as solving a problem that was already solved by setuptools itself quite some time ago. This is going to be another of those dumb users issues we clashed about before. Users are put off by having to read some large and semi-obscure manual that isn't even part of the official Python documentation in order to install packages. What other programming language does this? To top it off, they have to choose from three configuration methods, and some of them involve root changes in the Python distribution. And we have to put that at the *beginning* of the Pylons documentation, before they've even installed Pylons! That really makes Python look like a half-baked programming language. I didn't find this to be particularly convincing, but I will give you some ammunition for if/when this comes up again ;-) I was looking over the virtualenv features and it does in fact, have at least one significant technical advantage over the setuptools way: you can have multiple virtualenvs per user. This is something you wouldn't achieve without some ugly hackery using plain setuptools and actually seems pretty useful in general. With setuptools it's one virtual environment per user, but no more. Regards, Cliff --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: paster shebang line
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Cliff Wells [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Virtualenv, although it's not part of the stdlib, is straightforward and self-contained. You don't have to modify the system Python library to use it, so I don't see why you consider it incompatible with your old environment. It is incompatible for one simple reason: these are existing applications. It's simply not feasible to reinstall a customer's application with no tangible benefit to them. Most of them don't care it's written in Python, let alone that it's not using virtualenv. They won't appreciate the upgrade and they certainly won't pay for it. So more or less, it's an exercise in busy work. Who said anything about reinstalling customer applications? If they're working, they're working. If you've got a global install of Setuptools, it's fine.. at least until you have to install an app that needs a different version of a package than another app on the system needs. pkg_resources.require() would be great except that many apps including Paster have no place to specify the versions before the modules are imported. You could hack it into the stub executable, but then there's one more problem with installing Pylons apps via setup.py -- it overwrites the stub script. This is going to be another of those dumb users issues we clashed about before. Not especially. I'm going to dodge it since it's clear you care about it far more than I do =) I feel strongly about it because I've written several HOWTOs that needed this as a preamble, and I always feel apologetic about it. The latest proposal is for pkg_resources to go into Python alone, with a minimum download feature if it's run as a script, to download Setuptools or something from PyPI. That'll at least make it more straightforward to install Setuptools, or to use pkg_resources.require out of the box. -- Mike Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: paster shebang line
On Sat, 2008-04-12 at 18:08 -0700, Mike Orr wrote: On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Cliff Wells [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Virtualenv, although it's not part of the stdlib, is straightforward and self-contained. You don't have to modify the system Python library to use it, so I don't see why you consider it incompatible with your old environment. It is incompatible for one simple reason: these are existing applications. It's simply not feasible to reinstall a customer's application with no tangible benefit to them. Most of them don't care it's written in Python, let alone that it's not using virtualenv. They won't appreciate the upgrade and they certainly won't pay for it. So more or less, it's an exercise in busy work. Who said anything about reinstalling customer applications? I did. In the post that started this thread. If they're working, they're working. They were working until I upgraded the system Python from 2.4 to 2.5. I have both versions installed but /usr/bin/python is no longer 2.4. Hence my original complaint about distutils putting /usr/bin/python as the shebang line. The original issue has gotten conflated with our wandering argument, but I was addressing your specific statement as to why virtualenv wasn't compatible with my setup, rather than the argument as a whole. Probably I should mention that this system is Gentoo, which means that upgrading the system Python is an expected thing to do on occassion. If you've got a global install of Setuptools, it's fine.. at least until you have to install an app that needs a different version of a package than another app on the system needs. pkg_resources.require() would be great except that many apps including Paster have no place to specify the versions before the modules are imported. You could hack it into the stub executable, but then there's one more problem with installing Pylons apps via setup.py -- it overwrites the stub script. This is going to be another of those dumb users issues we clashed about before. Not especially. I'm going to dodge it since it's clear you care about it far more than I do =) I feel strongly about it because I've written several HOWTOs that needed this as a preamble, and I always feel apologetic about it. Well, I still feel pretty firmly that what we've discussed is well within the abilities of even an average Python programmer to handle. I certainly appreciate any efforts to simplify development tasks, but I also have a bit of disdain for the dumbing down mentality that seems to be pervading software in recent times. If it was hard to write, it should be hard to use wink. Regards, Cliff --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: paster shebang line
On Sat, 2008-04-12 at 16:51 -0500, Ian Bicking wrote: In a virtualenv context you wouldn't have had any problem. So... I can only say that future people will not have this problem, but there's nothing that can be done about your problem. Except for you to update the #! lines, which clearly you'll have to do anyway. I was pointed to the correct way to do this, which is to simply run easy_install again which will update the shebang lines for you. virtualenv is very much meant to keep working code working, and I think it does that. So there is a current answer to that problem. Yes, I'm turning around on virtualenv. Unfortunately there's not a lot to be done for legacy installs but it will certainly be a consideration for new installs. Regards, Cliff --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: paster shebang line
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Cliff Wells [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: virtualenv is very much meant to keep working code working, and I think it does that. So there is a current answer to that problem. Yes, I'm turning around on virtualenv. Unfortunately there's not a lot to be done for legacy installs but it will certainly be a consideration for new installs. By the way, what do you think of Buildout? We're debating whether to recommend virtualenv or buildout for people trying out Pylons. Most of our experience has been with virtualenv, but Buildout's cached eggs would be a nice feature for those who have several similar sandboxes. It seems like the main problem with Buildout is documentation, which can be fixed. -- Mike Orr [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
WebOb
Hi Pylons + WebOb - Documentation Thanks Madhu Alagu --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups pylons-discuss group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
