[issue12394] Packaging should provide better support for executable scripts on Windows

Éric Araujo added the comment: The copy function used will preserve rights. IOW, the +x will be needed in the source. -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue12394] Packaging should provide better support for executable scripts on Windows

Vinay Sajip added the comment: Then for Unix at least, how will the installer know which resources need the execute permission turned on? Just by the destination? -- ___ Python tracker ___

[issue12394] Packaging should provide better support for executable scripts on Windows

Éric Araujo added the comment: > Does that mean that you can't just put an arbitrary Python script in > your application? Arbitrary script files are supported via the resources feature (when the bug you reported is fixed :) The generation of scripts from callables is a widely-used setuptools

[issue12394] Packaging should provide better support for executable scripts on Windows

Vinay Sajip added the comment: Does that mean that you can't just put an arbitrary Python script in your application? You have to structure it as a callable? Of course, I see the applicability of it for the entry_points functionality of setuptools. -- ___

[issue12394] Packaging should provide better support for executable scripts on Windows

Éric Araujo added the comment: In the setup.cfg files, scripts will now be a mapping of names to callables, like the setuptools scripts and gui_scripts entry points: scripts = sphinx-build = sphinx.build.run On UNIX, a Python script named sphinx-build will be created, on Windows, a binar

[issue12394] Packaging should provide better support for executable scripts on Windows

Vinay Sajip added the comment: Éric, what will be the scope of that integration? Please bear in mind, I have a working solution, so there's no need to cover this part again unless you think there's a problem with my implementation. The changes were straightforward, see https://bitbucket.org

[issue12394] Packaging should provide better support for executable scripts on Windows

Éric Araujo added the comment: My GSoC student will work on integrating the scripts generation from setuptools into packaging. -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue12394] Packaging should provide better support for executable scripts on Windows

Tim Golden added the comment: Adding Mark H as the author of PEP 397 -- nosy: +mhammond ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list m

[issue12394] Packaging should provide better support for executable scripts on Windows

Vinay Sajip added the comment: @Tim: It had gone under my radar, thanks for the link! I don't know if/when it will be accepted (i.e. whether before 3.3), so my suggestion could be considered as a fallback alternative which works now. If the PEP 397 launcher is available, then of course we sho

[issue12394] Packaging should provide better support for executable scripts on Windows

Tim Golden added the comment: Are you aware of PEP 397? http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0397/ -- nosy: +tim.golden ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue12394] Packaging should provide better support for executable scripts on Windows

New submission from Vinay Sajip : At present, packaging support for scripts on Windows is the same as for any other system. This is sub-optimal, for the following reasons: 1. Windows doesn't support #! lines to find the correct executable for a script. On a system with multiple Python versions