On 06/03/2011 21:36, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
I should've mentioned that I'd like a consensus (or a lack of protest)
on the changes related to these snippets:
[...]
-"Exclusions of MS Windows"
I think you won't get consensus on that: there are strong proponents
and strong opponents (I think Mark being a strong proponent of such
exclusion, and Michael being a strong opponent).
Guido said he would like to see the PEP address Windows, although that
requires *some* consensus.
Paul Moore was +1 on Windows being included. Mark did accept that some
of the changes were "desirable", but was also concerned they didn't
address all the issues on Windows. I *would* like to see all the issues
addressed but I think that is outside the scope of this PEP.
The solution I would like to see for Windows, with other issues to be
addressed as issues in the bug tracker:
Create version specific (i.e. python32.exe / python32w.exe) binaries
*plus* a python3.exe / python3w.exe in the installer. Similar for Python
2.7 if we decide to modify 2.7 for the other platforms. (Presumably the
same also applies to 3.1?)
It would be fine for these to be binaries duplicating python.exe, or to
be links (which will mean not supporting some filesystems and possibly
not some versions of python).
This means that Windows users who add their Python install to the path
will have python, python3 and python3.2 on the path. (I believe this
means *most* Windows developers.) Which binary "python" and "python3"
actually launch when invoked from the command line will depend which
comes first in the path.
If the installer is enhanced to (optionally) automatically add a python
install to the path then this should follow the "last installed wins"
rules as file associations do currently.
An alternative solution, (perfectly acceptable to me) is that when
python is installed on Windows "for all users" it could put "python.exe"
*plus* the aforementioned version specific binaries into System32 which
would automatically put them on the path. This also has the "last
installed wins" behaviour for "python.exe" and "python3.exe". (Would it
require installing the appropriate msvcrt into System32 as well and is
this desirable?)
A generic Python launcher that could be used for the file association
and honours the Unix style shebang line, delegating to the appropriate
version of python, is an interesting idea but out of the scope of this PEP.
It would be interesting to see if Mark, or others, are strongly opposed
to these ideas or have strong preferences. If the biggest downside is
really that it still leaves some issues unresolved then lets do this and
tackle the other issues separately.
All the best,
Michael
I personally don't
care either way much, but will only do with the Windows installer what
the PEP tells me to do (if anything) (more precisely, I remain -0
on changing 2.7, and +0 on changing 3.3).
So it comes back to you as the PEP author to take a stance, which
you did. It's recommended tradition to record any opposing opinions
in the PEP, along with rebuttals, so that the same arguments aren't
brought up over and over again. If discussion then settles, it's
up to the PEP dictator to approve or reject the whole text.
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/fuzzyman%40voidspace.org.uk
--
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/
May you do good and not evil
May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others
May you share freely, never taking more than you give.
-- the sqlite blessing http://www.sqlite.org/different.html
_______________________________________________
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
