Antonio, I completely get what you're saying.
Anyway, we shouldn't be considering dropping bdist_wininst installers for windows unless we actually have something viable to replace them with. As much as I don't think they are the ideal solution, I'd hate to think about having to to package installation on windows without them. So from a pure practical point.. I totally agree with what you're saying.. David On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 07:44:03 +0000, "A. Cavallo" <a.cava...@cavallinux.eu> wrote: > None in fact and it is a make or break requirement in so many companies > that > if anyone is thinking of dropping bdist_wininst should rethink of it. > > If it goes away I have to discourage use of python because in no case a > language specific way to install things will ever replace the platform > standardised way. > > I'll give you an anecdotal example: I worked in a company developing > systems > for an extremely larger one. Our software needn't any installer: just unzip > > the thing and start to using it. Simple? You bet it cannot be any easier > than > that..... > One of the contractual requirements was about providing an "installer" for > windows: no matter how easy it was to deploy the thing. > > This makes sense because their way to manage systems has been standardised > in > that way (the windows way, like it or hate it): no matter how clever our > system was, it was extremely expensive to them doing it in "our" way. > > >> In all seriousness, a bdist_wininst installer would be ok for installing >> a python application, but the support for applications in distutils for >> windows is incomplete. > > It is just enough to allow people to work: dependencies are handled > manually > and this goes in a project requirement document. An exception on a missing > module it is just fine to give a hint about what is missing and trigger a > user > action. > > >> .egg files are perfect for windows. But the neccessary python support >> to make them work properly isn't complete either. >> What I am referring to here, is the shell extensions to the registry >> to make them load automatically. >> It would be so nice if we could double click on an egg file on pypi, >> download it, and install it automatically. >> I can't think of anything simpler. That would be proper native windows >> support. > > I disagree here and reinventing a package/dependencies manager to compete > with > cpan and rpm/dpkg/yum/zypper/synaptic/windows installers ... thanks no I > don't > feel any need for it. > > Ever heard of SuSE one click installer? It does exactly this for rpms. > In windows clicking on a web link with an *.exe trigger the action you're > just > asking for already: no need to support another language-specific layer. > > >> We would only have to add one script to distutils and a few registry >> settings for this could be accomplished. It could be progressively >> rolled out with new python versions. > > Sure and imagine a company stretching across three continents with hundred > developers and many more users and slightly different settings/python > versions: do you think anything like this will ever work in real life? How > does anybody going to handle the chain of trust (yes sooner or later > somebody > will ask THIS question)? > Again my solution will be easy: drop python off the list of language to > develop with. > > >> >From my perspective, PJE did a heck of a lot of good work. EGG files >> >> are a good idea. As long as they get unpacked and installed as any >> other python package on arrival. > > Excellent last point aiming straight to the problem: I cannot agree more. > > Regards, > Antonio > _______________________________________________ > Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig