Is it possible for the installer to check whether or not there is a
pre-existing system-wide launcher, and only do the complicated stuff
if it is actually there?
-jJ
___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 19:53:55 +0200, =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiB2LiBMw7Z3aXMi?=
mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
It happens when running test_smtplib before test_smtpb:
Nice! How did you work that out? I'd like to learn how to diagnose
this sort of thing, because it seems to come up a lot, and I'm not
Le mercredi 04 août 2010 à 21:43 +1000, Richard Jones a écrit :
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 August 2010 20:30, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
Brian is looking at Windows now (the buildbots are
a sad and sorry story).
There seems to be
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
It happens when running test_smtplib before test_smtpb:
Aha! Thanks for the clue. I've checked in a fix.
Richard
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
On 4 August 2010 13:05, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
I'm also quite confused by the test_smtpd failures that pop up on some
of the test runs that I've had absolutely no luck reproducing locally
under OS X or Solaris.
It happens when running test_smtplib before test_smtpb:
Nice!
Le mercredi 04 août 2010 à 16:28 +0100, Paul Moore a écrit :
On 4 August 2010 13:05, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
I'm also quite confused by the test_smtpd failures that pop up on some
of the test runs that I've had absolutely no luck reproducing locally
under OS X or
It happens when running test_smtplib before test_smtpb:
Nice! How did you work that out? I'd like to learn how to diagnose
this sort of thing, because it seems to come up a lot, and I'm not
much use at the moment :-)
I simply tried to run test_smtplib before test_smtpd.
A more
On 04/08/2010 18:53, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
It happens when running test_smtplib before test_smtpb:
Nice! How did you work that out? I'd like to learn how to diagnose
this sort of thing, because it seems to come up a lot, and I'm not
much use at the moment :-)
I simply tried
Howdy folks,
Quick e-mail at 34,000ft (aren't wifi-enabled flights great?) to mention
a new initiative that's been started by Microsoft called CoApp (Common
Opensource Application Publishing Platform). The aim is simple: make
open source software rock on Windows ;-)
It's probably easiest
Martin v. Löwis:
See http://bugs.python.org/issue6926
The SDK currently hides symbolic constants from us that people are
asking for.
Setting the version to 0x501 (XP) doesn't actively try to stop
running on version 0x500 (2K), it just reveals the symbols and APIs
from 0x501. Including a
Neil Hodgson wrote:
There
is the question of whether to force failure on Windows 2000 or just
remove it from the list of known-working platforms while still
allowing it to run.
I'd be grateful if you could refrain from doing anything to
actively break it. Win 2000 was the last version to be
Neil Hodgson wrote:
Martin v. Löwis:
See http://bugs.python.org/issue6926
The SDK currently hides symbolic constants from us that people are
asking for.
Setting the version to 0x501 (XP) doesn't actively try to stop
running on version 0x500 (2K), it just reveals the symbols and APIs
I don't recall whether we have already decided about continued support
for Windows 2000.
If not, I'd like to propose that we phase out that support: the Windows
2.7 installer should display a warning; 3.2 will stop supporting Windows
2000.
Opinions?
Regards,
Martin
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
I don't recall whether we have already decided about continued support
for Windows 2000.
If not, I'd like to propose that we phase out that support: the Windows
2.7 installer should display a warning; 3.2 will stop
On Mar 1, 2010, at 4:53 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
I don't recall whether we have already decided about continued support
for Windows 2000.
If not, I'd like to propose that we phase out that support: the Windows
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 13:40, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
I don't recall whether we have already decided about continued support
for Windows 2000.
If not, I'd like to propose that we phase out that support: the Windows
2.7 installer should display a warning; 3.2 will stop
Martin v. Löwis:
I don't recall whether we have already decided about continued support
for Windows 2000.
If not, I'd like to propose that we phase out that support: the Windows
2.7 installer should display a warning; 3.2 will stop supporting Windows
2000.
Is there any reason for this?
If not, I'd like to propose that we phase out that support: the Windows
2.7 installer should display a warning; 3.2 will stop supporting Windows
2000.
Is there any reason for this? I can understand dropping Windows 9x
due to the lack of Unicode support but is there anything missing from
Tim Golden wrote:
The Python docs have a section on running Python
on Windows. This is the online version:
http://docs.python.org/using/windows.html
The .chm version should be in c:\python31\doc\python31.chm
Which is more easily accessed via the start menu entry Python creates
for
I downloaded what claims to be Python for Windows (3.01). The tutorial
brags a lot about how easy it is to learn, but the tutorials and
instruction seem to be for a Linux or Unix version. There are three
executable programs in the Python directory and no indication which
should be used to
David H. Burns wrote:
I downloaded what claims to be Python for Windows (3.01). The tutorial
brags a lot about how easy it is to learn, but the tutorials and
instruction seem to be for a Linux or Unix version. There are three
executable programs in the Python directory and no indication which
David H. Burns wrote:
I downloaded what claims to be Python for Windows (3.01). The tutorial
brags a lot about how easy it is to learn, but the tutorials and
instruction seem to be for a Linux or Unix version. There are three
executable programs in the Python directory and no indication which
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Python for windows.
Of course, I don't object to that and still think we should help where we
can, but if that is true it would make the premise of this thread a little
misleading, as obviously HP could then make *any* necessary changes without
our agreement or even
Coghlan'; python-dev@python.org
Subject: RE: [Python-Dev] Python for windows.
Hi all,
I didn't look at the thread until this morning.
The OEM ready program required that the installed force to program files.
But as we preinstalled we use your msi with a normal parameter:
python-2.5.2.msi TARGETDIR
The OEM ready program required that the installed force to program
files. But as we preinstalled we use your msi with a normal
parameter: python-2.5.2.msi TARGETDIR=c:\program files\python
I think the debate was about whether it can be OEM ready,
even though you still need to pass the
[Hrm - looking closer at that HTML link I sent before, it says
specifically Per-machine installs must install to Program Files
by default in order to
pass this test case - that seems pretty clear...]
Given that the links in Gerald's examples were under Program Files, I
had assumed
Of course, I don't object to that and still think we should help where we
can, but if that is true it would make the premise of this thread a little
misleading, as obviously HP could then make *any* necessary changes without
our agreement or even knowledge.
Perhaps. However, help where we can
Mark Hammond wrote:
Greg writes:
Mark Hammond wrote:
The only conflict I see here is the requirement to install into
\Program Files
Doesn't that just mean that if an OEM decides to preinstall it,
they need to put it in Program Files? They're at liberty to
do that.
I'm not very familiar
On 2008-11-28 00:15, Christian Heimes wrote:
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
All, and not to start flames, but I still do not understand why
applink.c isn't included in python's main (conditionally) instead of
expecting users, many of them novices, to do the build. ???
One reason is that I don't
All, and not to start flames, but I still do not understand why
applink.c isn't included in python's main (conditionally) instead
of expecting users, many of them novices, to do the build. ???
One reason is that I don't know what applink is, and why I should care
about it. (I
Bugbee, Larry wrote:
As I recall, OpenSSL, a long while ago stopped, supporting some idiosyncrasies
associated with Windows I/O and opted for a cleaner approach, that of
requiring
developers to link a small file, applink.c, into the app's main.
Could it not be linked into the openssl
Mark Hammond wrote:
The only conflict I see here is the requirement to install into \Program
Files
Doesn't that just mean that if an OEM decides to preinstall it,
they need to put it in Program Files? They're at liberty to
do that.
--
Greg
___
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
All, and not to start flames, but I still do not understand why
applink.c isn't included in python's main (conditionally) instead of
expecting users, many of them novices, to do the build. ???
One reason is that I don't know what applink is, and why I should
care about
Greg writes:
Mark Hammond wrote:
The only conflict I see here is the requirement to install into
\Program Files
Doesn't that just mean that if an OEM decides to preinstall it,
they need to put it in Program Files? They're at liberty to
do that.
I'm not very familiar with the OEM
Hi all,
I am working For Hewlett-Packard designing PC Consumer Desktop
We have been including Python since over 10 years now on our systems.
It is a wonderful language and very powerful.
Now I am having a small issue and I was wondering how I can solve it.
So I would like to know who should I
This list is for the development of python. Questions about
programming with python go to c.l.python or python-list at python dot
org.
If your question is about the development of python, you can probably
just ask here.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Koenig, Gerald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
that mailing list with a lot of
things.
Gerald
-Original Message-
From: Leif Walsh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 11:21 AM
To: Koenig, Gerald
Cc: python-dev@python.org
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Python for windows.
This list is for the development of python
Koenig, Gerald wrote:
I am working For Hewlett-Packard designing PC Consumer Desktop
We have been including Python since over 10 years now on our systems.
I am writing this on a Pavilion that came with Python2.2. I hope you
are able to continue including Python.
Now I am having a small
Now I am having a small issue and I was wondering how I can solve it.
So I would like to know who should I contact to be able to work on that issue
together ?
Please understand how open source development works: lots of volunteers,
few formal commitments.
If you feel it's a political
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Reedy
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 12:18 PM
To: python-dev@python.org
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Python for windows.
Koenig, Gerald wrote:
I am working For Hewlett-Packard designing PC
, 2008 12:35 PM
To: python-dev@python.org
Subject: RE: [Python-Dev] Python for windows.
Hi all,
Right now we are including 2.5.2
I am planning on rolling to 2.6 very soon.
I completely understand that this is a volunteer organization.
That why I am already proposing that HP will submit for your guys
I completely understand that this is a volunteer organization.
That why I am already proposing that HP will submit for your guys after
we figure out how to fix the issues if it is possible to fix them of
course.
I don't fully understand why it is in HPs interests to install a normal
26, 2008 1:59 PM
To: Koenig, Gerald; python-dev@python.org
Subject: RE: [Python-Dev] Python for windows.
I completely understand that this is a volunteer organization.
That why I am already proposing that HP will submit for your guys after
we figure out how to fix the issues if it is possible
- Some of the executable deliver in the python package It does not
have manifest that is compliant with UAC guidelines..
c:\program files\python\lib\distutils\command\\wininst-6.0.exe
c:\program files\python\lib\distutils\command\\wininst-7.1.exe
Martin writes:
c:\program
files\python\lib\distutils\command\\wininst-8.0.exe
Hmm. These binaries are not meant to be run as executables themselves.
Instead, they are meant to be integrated into setup programs as-is.
wininst-6.0.exe, in particular, is created by MSVC 6.0,
But these are written with applications in mind - Python isn't an
application - its used to *write* applications. I don't see a good reason
to support these guidelines. I do see a reason to help support people
ensure their Python implemented applications can meet the guidelines, but
I'd
) instead of
expecting users, many of them novices, to do the build. ???
Larry
[snip]
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:06:44 +
From: Koenig, Gerald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Python-Dev] Python for windows.
To: python-dev@python.org python-dev@python.org
Message-ID:
[EMAIL
But these are written with applications in mind - Python isn't an
application - its used to *write* applications. I don't see a good
reason
to support these guidelines. I do see a reason to help support
people
ensure their Python implemented applications can meet the guidelines,
but
.
GErald
-Original Message-
From: Martin v. Löwis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 2:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Koenig, Gerald; python-dev@python.org
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Python for windows.
But these are written with applications in mind - Python isn't
I can promise you Python on our system Python work perfectly.
I'm sure it does :) I'm more concerned about *your* apps not working when
the user, or a helpful friend, uninstalls this Python thing that they
don't use. I'm very interested to know why you don't see this as a
significant problem
IIUC, the test suite is about having the Python installer certified as OEM
Ready, which means a few special things - including, IIUC, the right to
be installed in a new PC. My broader point is that I would advise against
any application vendor reusing the standard Python installer for their
All, and not to start flames, but I still do not understand why
applink.c isn't included in python's main (conditionally) instead of
expecting users, many of them novices, to do the build. ???
One reason is that I don't know what applink is, and why I should
care about it. (I may have known
All, and not to start flames, but I still do not understand why
applink.c isn't included in python's main (conditionally) instead
of expecting users, many of them novices, to do the build. ???
One reason is that I don't know what applink is, and why I should
care about it. (I may
Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps. I wouldn't go so far, though. It's surely puzzling if a system
comes with a pre-installed Python, but if that Python actually works,
I don't think that does much damage.
OS X does come with pre-installed Python, so this is a debate we have
Bugbee, Larry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For most custom apps this is a simple process of adding #include applink.c
to the app's main(). The problem for Python developers is that their Python
program is not main(), and if python.exe does not have the OPENSSL_Applink
interface, they cannot
Right, and I agree with it. However, that is HP's choice, and while
there is a theoretical possibility that users break their systems, in
practice, most users are too scared to actually attempt such breakage.
However, OEM ready sounds like a good goal to achieve.
Agreed too - I don't think
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 5:54 PM
To: Bugbee, Larry
Cc: Martin v. Löwis; Koenig, Gerald; python-dev@python.org
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Python for windows.
Bugbee, Larry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For most custom apps this is a simple process of adding #include
Mark Hammond wrote:
BTW - isn't there also a \Program Files requirement...?
The requirement as I read it is that /Program Files be the over-rideable
*default*, as is normal for Windows programs. HP installed 2.2 on my
machine in /Python2.2. Since HP does the installation, I presume they
As I recall, OpenSSL, a long while ago stopped, supporting some
idiosyncrasies associated with Windows I/O and opted for a cleaner
approach, that of requiring developers to link a small file,
applink.c, into the app's main. applink.c is provided by the OpenSSL
folks.
[...]
Ok, this
The only conflict I see here is the requirement to install into \Program
Files and I'm surprised that hasn't been raised in this thread.
The question is whether the OEM ready is a property of the installer,
or a property of the installed. The OEM can chose to install Python into
program files,
Hi,
I would like to explore the possibility of submitting patches to allow
Python to work on Windows CE out of the box. I have a few questions in
preparation:
1. Is there any reason in principle why patches for Windows CE support would
be rejected?
2. Should I submit unified diffs or
Luke Dunstan wrote:
1. Is there any reason in principle why patches for Windows CE support would
be rejected?
No, not in principle. Of course,
- the patch shouldn't break anything
- you should state an explicit commitment to support the port for
some years (or else it might get removed at
62 matches
Mail list logo
