On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> Another problem case: cx_Freeze. This currently breaks when installed
> in a viretualenv, as it locates the "Scripts" directory by appending
> "Scripts" to the directory of the python executable.
>
> So the proposed change *will* break cx_Freez
On 22 March 2012 23:15, VanL wrote:
> Another use case was just pointed out to me: making things consistent with
> buildout. Given a similar use
> case (create repeatable cross platform environments), they create and use a
> 'bin' directory for executable files.
Another problem case: cx_Freeze.
On 23/03/2012 7:10 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
On 23 March 2012 03:20, Brian Curtin wrote:
Breakage of existing tools: Mark Hammond, Paul Moore, and Tim Golden have
all expressed that they have existing tools that would break and would need
to be adjusted to match the new location of the python.exe,
On 23 March 2012 03:20, Brian Curtin wrote:
>> Breakage of existing tools: Mark Hammond, Paul Moore, and Tim Golden have
>> all expressed that they have existing tools that would break and would need
>> to be adjusted to match the new location of the python.exe, because that
>> location is assumed
[snipped some CCs]
On 23/03/2012 2:20 PM, Brian Curtin wrote:
...
I get that tools could be affected. I had two IDE makers at PyCon
immediately throw up red flags to this change. I think one of them was
about to charge the stage during my talk. When it was mentioned that
we could point them to t
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 18:26, Ethan Furman wrote:
> Given the cost of the change, and the advent of the PEP-397 Launcher, I also
> vote -1.
Can you provide some justification other than a number? It's a pretty
cheap change and the launcher solves somewhat of a different problem.
2012/3/22 VanL :
> Open Issues:
>
> """If we do put python.exe on PATH (whether it's in bin or not), we have
> to debate how to handle people having multiple versions of python on
> their machine. In a post-PEP 397 world, no Python is "the machine
> default" - .py files are associated with py.exe,
Given the cost of the change, and the advent of the PEP-397 Launcher, I
also vote -1.
~Ethan~
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/pyth
Another use case was just pointed out to me: making things consistent with
buildout. Given a similar use case (create repeatable cross platform
environments), they create and use a 'bin' directory for executable files.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Pytho
I'm responding to both of Van's recent messages in one:
On 23/03/2012 1:47 AM, VanL wrote:
[PART 2: Moving the python binary]
...
A regular complaint of those new to Python on windows (and new to
programming generally) has been that one of the first things that
they need to do is to edit the P
[PART 2: Moving the python binary]
There are two proposals on the table: 1) Regularize the install layout,
and 2) move the python binary to the binaries directory. This email
deals with the second issue exclusively. This has been the more
contentious issue.
2) Moving the Python exe:
A regula
11 matches
Mail list logo
