On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:30 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote: >> Agreed, I would expect the same. I would think taking out the word >> "only" and then flipping newer and older in the sentence would correct >> it. > > Will change. > >>> "On 64bit Windows with both 32bit and 64bit implementations of the same >>> (major.minor) Python version installed, the 64bit version will always be >>> preferred. This will be true for both 32bit and 64bit implementations of >>> the launcher - a 32bit launcher will prefer to execute a 64bit Python >>> installation of the specified version if available." >>> >>> This implies to me that the 32bit installation *will* install a 32bit >>> launcher and that there could be both versions of the launcher installed. > > No - this paragraph talks about the Python being launched, not the > bitness of the launcher. As (currently) the launcher creates a > subprocess always, this is quite feasible. > > The bitness of the launcher really doesn't matter, except that a 32-bit > launcher cannot access all directories, and a 64-bit launcher does not > work on a 32-bit system. > > Now that I think about it, it might be that it's best to always have the > launcher as a 32-bit binary. It could disable the filesystem and > registry redirection if it really wanted to, and would work on both > 32-bit and 64-bit systems.
Always doing a 32-bit binary seems like a better move to me. >> I took that as covering an independently-installed launcher. >> >> You could always install your own 32-bit launcher, and it'd prefer to >> launch a binary matching the machine type. > > No, that's not the plan. The binary being launched is entirely > controlled by command line arguments, ini files, and shebang lines. > > I personally find it sad that it always creates a subprocess, and it > could avoid doing so if the launched Python has the same bitness, but > alas, the problems with doing so are mostly convincing. > >> So yes, there could be >> multiple launchers installed for different machine types, and I'm not >> sure why we'd want to (or how we could) prevent people from installing >> them. You could have a 64-bit launcher available system-wide in your >> Windows folder, then you could have a 32-bit launcher running out of >> C:\Users\Terry for some purposes. > > The PEP doesn't really consider launcher binaries not installed into > the standard location. It would work, but it's out of scope of the PEP. > > The PEP actually only talks about launcher binaries in c:\windows, and > essentially says that they must match the bitness of the system. True, got it. >> My only additional comment would be to have the "Configuration file" >> implementation details supplemented with a readable example of where >> the py.ini file should be placed. On my machine that is >> "C:\Users\brian\AppData\Local", rather than making people have to run >> that parameter through the listed function via pywin32. > > Will do. > > 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
