On 5 January 2015 at 21:47, Steve Dower wrote:
> Paul Moore wrote:
>> tl;dr We should have "Add this Python to PATH" as a user choice on the
>> initial
>> installer screen, applicable to whichever install type the user chooses.
>> Details
>> as to why are below.
>
> I agree. I'll work this up be
Paul Moore wrote:
> tl;dr We should have "Add this Python to PATH" as a user choice on the initial
> installer screen, applicable to whichever install type the user chooses.
> Details
> as to why are below.
I agree. I'll work this up before alpha 1. (FWIW, it defaults to unselected.)
Displaying
tl;dr We should have "Add this Python to PATH" as a user choice on the
initial installer screen, applicable to whichever install type the
user chooses. Details as to why are below.
On 5 January 2015 at 17:09, Steve Dower wrote:
> Paul Moore wrote:
>> Steve is in essence saying that it's not possi
On 05/01/2015 17:09, Steve Dower wrote:
Paul Moore wrote:
Steve is in essence saying that it's not possible to sanely manage PATH as part
of the new installer, but that py.exe makes that unnecessary.
It's actually not possible to sanely manage PATH from any installer - it really needs to
be h
Ethan Furman:
> On 01/04/2015 02:56 PM, Steve Dower wrote:
>
>> ChrisA wrote:
>>> You talk of installing by default into Program Files, and having a
>>> separate per-user installation mode. How do these two installation
>>> targets interact? Suppose someone installs 3.5 globally, then
>>> insta
Mark Lawrence wrote:
> If I'm reading this correctly it means that py.exe gets picked up from PATH so
> it could be 32 or 64 bit. Does this mean that the launcher could be or needs
> enhancing so 32 or 64 bit can be selected? I'm not sure if anything can be
> done
> about pyw.exe, perhaps you (pl
On 01/04/2015 02:56 PM, Steve Dower wrote:
> ChrisA wrote:
>> You talk of installing by default into Program Files, and having a
>> separate per-user installation mode. How do these two installation
>> targets interact? Suppose someone installs 3.5 globally, then installs
>> 3.6 for self only? Or
On 5 January 2015 at 08:40, Donald Stufft wrote:
>> The biggest problem here is that py.exe doesn't help in the slightest
>> with script wrappers like pip.exe, virtualenv.exe, py.test.exe,
>> ipython.exe ... I've actually drifted away from using py.exe because
>> of this. Having just the interpret
On 04/01/2015 22:56, Steve Dower wrote:
Paul Moore wrote:
Overall, this looks good. One question - will it be possible to
install both 32-bit and 64-bit Python on the same machine? Currently,
you need a custom install to do this (as the default directory doesn't
include the architecture) and II
> On Jan 5, 2015, at 3:13 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
>
>> py.exe is more important than ever. It's still installed into the Windows
>> directory for all-user installs, and into the Python directory for
>> just-for-me. It's installed in a way that will make upgrades more reliable
>> (so if you inst
On 5 January 2015 at 01:20, Steve Dower wrote:
> I think this means the best way to make multiple versions work properly is to
> rename python.exe to python3.5.exe, then install the launcher as python.exe
> and python3.exe (with some logic to look at its own name) so it can resolve
> the right
On 4 January 2015 at 22:56, Steve Dower wrote:
>> Also, what happens now with setting PATH? Is Python (and the scripts
>> directory) added to PATH by default? If so, what happens when you
>> install 2 versions of Python?
>
> Yes, and in general the later installed version will win and system-wide
12 matches
Mail list logo
