> Seems to me that while all this is fine for developers and Python users > it's completely unsatisfactory for people who just want to use Python > applications. For them it's much easier if each application comes with > all dependencies including the interpreter.
I think it depends on your engineering principles. If you absolutely have to use the latest version of any software package just because it is there, you will certainly end up with a wobbly setup where only a single combination of libraries can cooperate at all. OTOH, if you develop with backwards compatibility in mind, it may be more painful to develop, but much easier to deploy. Many of the larger libraries and applications (Twisted, Roundup, MoinMoin) support a wide range of Python releases, and an equally wide range of underlying libraries (in case they need any) - so it can be done. Of course, if you have just a single installation for your application, developing it portably across various versions could be wasted effort. However, in that case, I found it sufficient to just make it work on (the Debian packages of) that single installation. Every time I upgrade to a new Debian release, I have to see what breaks in my applications. Most of the time, very little if any effort is needed. So I disagree that application developers homogeneously prefer packaging everything into a single stand-alone package. For some, it's just not an option, for others, it's unnecessary. I do develop applications myself, and had only once in ten years the desire to package everything in a stand-alone way, and then ended up using freeze. I'm genuinely curious what the scenarios are where people desire such packaging - I did hear the desire often, but never fully explained. Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
