On 25/03/2009 6:51 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
Mike Driscoll did some work providing Windows installers for various
Python packages and extension modules, and people were amused that he
provided executable installers for pure Python libraries. But I saw that
as a sensible decision, since it meant that Windows users (and even
Windows Python application developers) used the same mechanism to
install everything.
The Windows story is indeed sad, as none of the Windows packaging
formats provides support for dependencies (MSI has some support,
but as far as I understand it, it's pretty useless). But yes, for
Windows, you want .exe or .msi installers, not something proprietary.
Isn't this discussion slightly at cross-purposes?
* py2exe doesn't create *installers*, just the target application. It
(poorly) manages dependencies on the build machine. There doesn't seem
to be a need for runtime dependency management in this tool.
* The creation of an *installer* is something quite different. An
installer for a py2exe based tool also doesn't need dependency
management. An installer for a pure-python package that made no attempt
to bundle dependencies might be nice, but I don't quite see how that
falls outside the scope of distutils/setuptools/etc. In other words, I
don't see why the installer can't bootstrap the 'normal' dependency
management which would be used if the package was installed any other
way or on other platforms.
* distutils already has the ability to create Windows installer
executables for pure-python apps/libs. I agree it would be nice if it
was an MSI but that is an implementation detail rather than
implementation requirement. How were Mike's packages fundamentally
different than that?
Cheers,
Mark
_______________________________________________
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
