Ian Bicking wrote:
So, coming back to the idea of a working environment, an isolated and
more-or-less self-contained environment for holding installed packages.
Sorry if this is a little scattered. I'm just summarizing my thoughts
and the open issues I see, in no particular order
I wrote a script last night that implements some of the ideas of a
working environment, similar in goals to virtual-python.py, but it
doesn't actually work like that.
http://svn.colorstudy.com/home/ianb/working-env.py
When you run python working-env.py env you get:
env/
bin/
activate
Jim Fulton wrote:
Each of the scripts in bin/ should know what their working environment
is. This is slightly tricky, depending on what that means. If it is
a totally isolated environment -- no site-packages on sys.path -- then
I feel like the script wrappers have to be shell scripts, to
At 01:40 PM 3/11/2006 -0500, Brad Clements wrote:
I would like to use setuptools, eggs with entry points, and so forth
with Jython.
Is this possible?
Not as far as I know.
If not, what's needed?
A release of Jython that's equivalent to Python 2.3 or better, including
PEP 302 support and the
At 03:22 PM 3/11/2006 -0600, Ian Bicking wrote:
#!/usr/bin/python -S
import sys, os
join, dirname = os.path.join, os.path.dirname
lib_dir = join(dirname(dirname(__file__)), 'lib', 'python%s.%s' %
tuple(sys.version_info[:2]))
sys.path.insert(0, lib_dir)
import site
...
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 03:22 PM 3/11/2006 -0600, Ian Bicking wrote:
#!/usr/bin/python -S
import sys, os
join, dirname = os.path.join, os.path.dirname
lib_dir = join(dirname(dirname(__file__)), 'lib', 'python%s.%s' %
tuple(sys.version_info[:2]))
sys.path.insert(0, lib_dir)
Ian Bicking wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
...
lib/python2.4/ is for packages.
Minor note: this needs to be flexible. I'd be more inclined to go
with something shallower and simpler, like just lib,
Why? Top-level packages aren't portable, since .pyc files aren't
portable. Eggs are
Jim Fulton wrote:
Ian Bicking wrote:
Jim Fulton wrote:
...
lib/python2.4/ is for packages.
Minor note: this needs to be flexible. I'd be more inclined to go
with something shallower and simpler, like just lib,
Why? Top-level packages aren't portable, since .pyc files aren't
