On 21/03/2012 1:08 AM, Lindberg, Van wrote:
On 3/20/2012 5:48 AM, Mark Hammond wrote:
While I'm still unclear on the actual benefits of this, Martin's
approach strikes a reasonable compromise so I withdraw my objections.
Ok. I was out of town and so could not respond to most of the latest
discussion.
A question for you Mark, Paul, (and anyone else): Éric correctly points
out that there are actually two distinct changes proposed here:
1. Moving the Python binary
2. Changing from "Scripts" to "bin"
So far, the primary resistance seems to be to item #1 - moving the
python binary. There have been a few people who have noted that #2 will
require some code to change (i.e. Paul), but I don't see lots of resistance.
Am I reading you correctly?
Well - as Paul implies, there are 2 distinct changes being proposed, but
in 2 different environments.
For an installed Python: If it has to move, it may as well move to
somewhere consistent with other platforms. IOW, moving to "bin" seems
preferable to moving to Scripts. My initial objection was to moving it
at all in an installed Python.
For a virtual env, we are talking about moving it *from* Scripts to bin,
which may cause some people different problems. However, that isn't the
concern I was expressing and I'd hate to see virtual envs remain
inconsistent with an installed Python after this effort.
So I'm assuming that:
* The executable (and DLL) are moved to a "bin" directory in an
installed Python.
* distutils etc will change to install all "scripts" (or executables
generated from scripts) into that same directory. IOW, "Scripts" would die.
* A virtual-env would have an almost identical layout to an installed
Python.
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
