Roundup Robot added the comment:
New changeset 4123e002a1af by Vinay Sajip in branch 'default':
Closes #18491: Added script-wrapper functionality to launcher source (but not
to executable).
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/4123e002a1af
--
nosy: +python-dev
resolution: - fixed
stage:
Paul Moore added the comment:
Updated patch, as per discussion.
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file30994/launcher_wrapper.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue18491
___
Changes by Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com:
Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file30966/launcher_wrapper.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue18491
___
Paul Moore added the comment:
Correct about .pyw files - I had forgotten those, I will update the patch.
The idea of support code was to (somewhat) alleviate Mark's question about
what is this for, I was wondering if it was worth adding a module to the
stdlib which did the job of saving a
Tim Golden added the comment:
Glancing back, it isn't perhaps clear to the casual reader what's being
proposed here, and why. The idea is that a pip-style installer become part of
core Python. For Windows users, any standalone scripts from an installed
package would be placed in scripts/ with
Vinay Sajip added the comment:
How about the following?
1. Paul updates the patch to include .pyw files, but also puts all the
functionality of this patch in #if defined(SCRIPT_WRAPPER).
2. SCRIPT_WRAPPER is left undefined in the launcher Visual Studio project, so
it will build identically to
Paul Moore added the comment:
I've no problem with that suggestion. The patch is clean enough that ifdef-ing
it out won't be hard.
Revised patch incoming :-) It's needed for the pyw support in any case.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
Mark Hammond added the comment:
Vinay's idea makes sense to me. Paul can also subtly change the patch such
that when SCRIPT_WRAPPER is defined, failure to find the wrapper is fatal and
prints a message specific to this fact rather than just starting an interactive
Python (assuming I read the
New submission from Paul Moore:
Adds exe wrapper functionality to the Windows launcher. This is a preliminary
patch, for comments - the code is there and works, but I need to add
documentation (and maybe tests - are there any existing tests for the launcher?)
Also to be considered: should the
Changes by Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com:
--
keywords: +patch
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file30966/launcher_wrapper.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue18491
___
Changes by Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +tim.golden
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue18491
___
___
Python-bugs-list
Changes by Jeremy Kloth jeremy.kloth+python-trac...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +jkloth
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue18491
___
___
Vinay Sajip added the comment:
My initial comments - seems like a reasonable approach. I think you may need to
consider -script.pyw for the GUI case. I will look into it in more detail.
I'll add Mark to the nosy list, as the launcher was originally his idea and he
might have a view.
What
Mark Hammond added the comment:
I don't understand the motivation for this - how will it be used in practice?
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue18491
___
Vinay Sajip added the comment:
I don't understand the motivation for this - how will it be used in practice?
It allows the launcher to do double duty as an executable launcher for scripts
which works in the same way as executable launchers in setuptools-installed
scripts.
Its use in this
Mark Hammond added the comment:
Obviously I'm missing a little context, but it seems a little wrong for the
same launcher to be doing this double-duty. It seems we only want to use the
launcher in this way as it already has some of the interesting code we need -
but the vast majority of
16 matches
Mail list logo
