Chris Withers wrote:
David Cournapeau wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
even seems to imply this is a basic requirement. I wonder how many
people are rolling out python apps on Win64? I'm certainly not...
Even was maybe a bit strong. Concerning win64, the first release of
numpy we did for win64
David Cournapeau a écrit :
But even though, I doubt buildout is what I am after: chroot-like
sandboxing for example, is crucial (and for what it worths, it is a
standard practice in the unix deployment world).
What I use is kind of besides the point, though. What matters is to have
a
David Cournapeau wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
even seems to imply this is a basic requirement. I wonder how many
people are rolling out python apps on Win64? I'm certainly not...
Even was maybe a bit strong. Concerning win64, the first release of
numpy we did for win64 has been downloaded 3000
A typical windows user, if they see an .exe installer, they would just
install it by double-clicking on it. I don't know how many winodw users
would automatically think to open a command shell and type the command
line.
None in fact and it is a make or break requirement in so many companies
David Cournapeau wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
From that I infer that most people use tools like buildout or pip to
manage installation, even on Windows.
I am skeptical about this claim because up to recently, virtualenv did
not even work correctly for windows when you needed to build a C
2009/10/28 Chris Withers ch...@simplistix.co.uk:
Paul Moore wrote:
Maybe someone has confused me. I understood that easy_install can
consume bdist_wininst format .exe files just as easily as .egg format,
and easy_install will do your dependency management for you.
So, if you provide a
Chris Withers wrote:
even seems to imply this is a basic requirement. I wonder how many
people are rolling out python apps on Win64? I'm certainly not...
Even was maybe a bit strong. Concerning win64, the first release of
numpy we did for win64 has been downloaded 3000 times, even though it is
[adding in disutils-sig and leaving this message intact as that's where
it belongs]
Paul Moore wrote:
2009/10/20 Ian Bicking i...@colorstudy.com:
FWIW, I don't think there's a real conflict here. My understanding is
that wininst installers can be treated as installable packages that
don't
Paul Moore wrote:
2009/10/20 Ian Bicking i...@colorstudy.com:
Well, I wanted to move it off python-dev, and I didn't really feel
like moving it onto distutils-sig because I felt the debate was not
particularly important to introduce the confusion of a half-started
thread.
Sorry, I hadn't
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe someone has confused me. I understood that easy_install can
consume bdist_wininst format .exe files just as easily as .egg format,
and easy_install will do your dependency management for you.
That's exactly the case,
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:51:10 +0100, Tarek Ziadé ziade.ta...@gmail.com
wrote:
$ easy_install your_bdist_wininst_dist.exe
will install it and process the dependencies from the install_requires
option.
And pip should be compatible soon too. That makes this format a
perfect binary format for
On 2009-10-27 18:41 PM, David Lyon wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:51:10 +0100, Tarek Ziadéziade.ta...@gmail.com
wrote:
$ easy_install your_bdist_wininst_dist.exe
will install it and process the dependencies from the install_requires
option.
And pip should be compatible soon too. That makes
On Oct 27, 2009, at 7:41 PM, David Lyon wrote:
I'm not sure about that Tarek..
An .exe installer as a perfect binary format for python packages?
Are you serious?
That is the biggest security threat I can think of, asking python
users to run unverified, unsigned, un-trusted executable files
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:51:07 -0500, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com
wrote:
easy_install does not execute the executable. bdist_wininst installers
are
zip
files concatenated with an executable header. easy_install just unzips
the
file
as if it were a zipped egg and ignores the executable
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:06:11 -0400, Glyph Lefkowitz
If you're concerned about security and distutils, there is a _lot_ of
work to do. There is no particular additional danger in executing
a .exe rather than a setup.py.
Come to think of it.. you're totally right..
:-(
David
Chris Withers wrote:
From that I infer that most people use tools like buildout or pip to
manage installation, even on Windows.
I am skeptical about this claim because up to recently, virtualenv did
not even work correctly for windows when you needed to build a C
extension (bug which has been
16 matches
Mail list logo
