At 03:07 PM 9/23/2005 +0200, Thomas Heller wrote: >Paul Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On 9/17/05, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> However, after reflection, I think now that -m probably only really makes > >> sense for stdlib modules, since projects using setuptools can now get all > >> the benefits of -m without any of the drawbacks, without even writing any > >> __name__=='__main__' code. > > > > One thing you get with -m is that the module doesn't have to be on > > PATH. Where does setuptools install its wrapper executables? (The > > usual \Python24\Scripts directory isn't added to PATH by the > > installer). > > > > I know, I'm nitpicking. Sorry :-) > >No, you're not. IMO. setuptools installs them in PythonXY\Scripts.
Unless you set --install-scripts somewhere else, which you can do in a configuration file. To the greatest extent possible, I'm trying to have setuptools minimize surprises with respect to installation locations, by conforming to the active distutils configuration. >BTW: Shouldn't 'setup.py develop --uninstall' remove them again? It >doesn't. setuptools has hardly any uninstallation capabilities as yet. >And yet another question: How should my setup-script start? Is this the >correct way: > >""" >from ez_setup import use_setuptools >use_setuptools() > >from distutils.core import setup It's a way that works. I personally use 'from setuptools import setup' and whatever else I need to import, but whatever you prefer is fine. setuptools patches itself into the distutils core. It used to not do that, but then I realized that the way py2exe and other distutils extensions patch themselves in, you would lose setuptools functionality unless I patched myself in also. Hopefully in future everybody will use setuptools' extension functionality so that patching will be unnecessary. _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
