[skipping a lot of lines ...] Roberto> Remove virtualenv support, if a user need it and use xml Roberto> config files it will (very) probably specify it in the xml Roberto> file and not in the command line.
I do not like the idea of removing virtualenv support; that is not a proper fix in my opinion but more or less a workaround. Even though we do not have things like PIP_RESPECT_VIRTUALENV with Cherokee to ease to pain of finding out what the user really wants, maybe we could just expose this to the user via the admin entirely (when he's using the wizard). As an entry point the mere question "do you want to use a virtualenv" would be enough; if "yes" it dives down into "what is the directory root used for this virtualenv" and so on. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of "officially" supporting the choice for a virtualenv through the admin (with the wizard). As a semiautomatic measure: if the import for virtualenv fails right away, then the wizard would not even need to show the "do you want to use a virtualenv" but maybe just an info that virtualenv is not installed into the global Python context/space (sys.path) and that it needs to be installed in order to proceed with using a virtualenv. _______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
