On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 01:20:06PM -0400, Donald Stufft wrote:
I think it’s an issue for all platforms, even when there is a system Python
that can be used.
Here’s why:
* Even on Linux systems Python isn’t always a guaranteed thing to be
installed,
for instance Debian works just fine
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 05:38:49PM +0100, Paul Moore wrote:
I suspect single file executables just aren't viewed as a desirable
solution on Unix.
More of an anti-pattern than a pattern. A single file executable means
that when you have a security update, instead of patching one library,
you
Hello,
On Fri, 29 May 2015 20:53:53 +1000
Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
[ insightful statistics skipped ]
I think there are some exciting and interesting languages coming up:
Swift, Julia, Go, Rust and others.
Only those? Every one in a dozen university student comes up with
On 29 May 2015 at 09:36, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
The point is, in the Linux circles I move in, this idea of single file
installation would be about as popular as a police raid at a rave club.
Maybe you move in different circles (perhaps more enterprisey?), but I
can already
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 07:08:43AM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 29 May 2015 05:25, Chris Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov wrote:
OK, I'm really confused here:
1) what the heck is so special about go all of a sudden? People have been
writing and deploying single file executables built with
Paul Moore writes:
In my environments, we frequently have ancient versions of RHEL
installed, sometimes with no Python at all (IIRC) or nothing better
than 2.4.
That's pretty advanced as older Red Hat systems go. You're lucky it
isn't 1.5.2!
Getting serious, Red Hat systems have included
On 28 May 2015 at 22:09, Glenn Linderman v+pyt...@g.nevcal.com wrote:
This would be something I could use and benefit from immediately upon it
being available, so I laud your idea, and hope you have a successful
implementation, and look forward to using it. It would largely replace the
need
On May 29, 2015 at 4:37:37 AM, Steven D'Aprano (st...@pearwood.info) wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 01:20:06PM -0400, Donald Stufft wrote:
I think it’s an issue for all platforms, even when there is a system Python
that can be used.
Here’s why:
* Even on Linux systems Python
On Fri, 29 May 2015 18:36:02 +1000
Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
The point is, in the Linux circles I move in, this idea of single file
installation would be about as popular as a police raid at a rave club.
This is frankly not true. There are many programs (e.g. games) which
On 5/28/2015 4:29 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
On 28 May 2015 at 20:47, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
I think it's to have a single tool to do it for any platform, not to have
the technical nuts and bolts be the same necessarily. I think it's also to
figure out if there is anything the
On 29 May 2015 at 23:15, Glenn Linderman v+pyt...@g.nevcal.com wrote:
I don't presently see any C:\Python34\DLLs or C:\Python34 on my path, but I
didn't ask the installer to put it there either. So I'm guessing your option
1 assumes asking the Python installer to put it there? Not automatically
On 5/29/2015 2:45 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
On 29 May 2015 at 21:49, Glenn Linderman v+pyt...@g.nevcal.com wrote:
That looks interesting, I wonder what compilation environment it would need?
I don't think I've even installed a C compiler on my last couple boxes, and
the only version of a C compiler
On 5/29/2015 3:28 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
On 29 May 2015 at 23:15, Glenn Linderman v+pyt...@g.nevcal.com wrote:
I don't presently see any C:\Python34\DLLs or C:\Python34 on my path, but I
didn't ask the installer to put it there either. So I'm guessing your option
1 assumes asking the Python
Paul Moore wrote:
One mildly annoying thing is that python3.dll is only installed in python
install dir\DLLs, which
typically isn't on PATH. So actually using the limited API from your own
application fails by default.
Fixing that's mostly a user admin issue, though (and you can just link
I did that once; it wasn't worth it. It was no smaller than what
PyInstaller would output and required manually adding in the required
modules that weren't in the stdlib, along with any extra DLLs (e.g. the Qt
DLLs).
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29
On 5/29/2015 3:33 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
On 28 May 2015 at 22:09, Glenn Linderman v+pyt...@g.nevcal.com wrote:
This would be something I could use and benefit from immediately upon it
being available, so I laud your idea, and hope you have a successful
implementation, and look forward to using
On 29 May 2015 at 21:49, Glenn Linderman v+pyt...@g.nevcal.com wrote:
That looks interesting, I wonder what compilation environment it would need?
I don't think I've even installed a C compiler on my last couple boxes, and
the only version of a C compiler I have is, umm... M$VC++6.0, since
On 29 May 2015 05:25, Chris Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov wrote:
OK, I'm really confused here:
1) what the heck is so special about go all of a sudden? People have been
writing and deploying single file executables built with C and ++, and
whatever else? forever. (and indeed, it was a big
On 5/28/2015 12:26 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
On 28 May 2015 at 19:22, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately (and believe me, I've been down this road many times) on
Windows *only* the exe format is a first-class executable.
Executable scripts and shebangs are very useful, but there
On 28 May 2015 at 20:47, Brett Cannon br...@python.org wrote:
I think it's to have a single tool to do it for any platform, not to have
the technical nuts and bolts be the same necessarily. I think it's also to
figure out if there is anything the interpreter and/or stdlib can do to
facilitate
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Ryan Gonzalez rym...@gmail.com wrote:
py2exe tends to invoke DLL hell if you have various versions of VS or
Office or both installed. Because Windows.
uh, yes -- Windows applications invoke dll hell..nothign to be done
about that!
-Chris
On May 28,
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 3:04 AM, Brian Curtin br...@python.org wrote:
Donald mentioned one earlier: command line utilities. I want a single
CLI I can deploy to my customers that doesn't make them have to
install Python or even know it's Python at all. My users write code in
all types of
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 3:52 AM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 May 2015 at 18:15, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
Unix-like systems have this courtesy of the shebang, so as long as
there's some sort of Python installed, people don't need to know or
care that
On 28 May 2015 at 19:22, Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately (and believe me, I've been down this road many times) on
Windows *only* the exe format is a first-class executable.
Executable scripts and shebangs are very useful, but there are always
corner cases where they don't
On 5/28/2015 12:44 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
I do think single-file executables are an important piece to Python's
long-term competitiveness.
I completely agree. I talk to a lot of people about packaging of things, and
while
I think there are some serious problems with huge parts of Go’s
OK, I'm really confused here:
1) what the heck is so special about go all of a sudden? People have been
writing and deploying single file executables built with C and ++, and
whatever else? forever. (and indeed, it was a big sticking point for me
when I introduced python in my organization)
2)
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 3:25 PM Chris Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov wrote:
OK, I'm really confused here:
1) what the heck is so special about go all of a sudden? People have been
writing and deploying single file executables built with C and ++, and
whatever else? forever. (and indeed, it was
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 3:20 AM, Donald Stufft don...@stufft.io wrote:
On May 28, 2015 at 12:54:34 PM, Chris Angelico (ros...@gmail.com) wrote:
Is this a Windows-specific issue, or is it also intended for Linux and
Mac OS, where there'll already be a system Python (so a
single-file-executable
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Chris Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov wrote:
I'm confused:
Doesn't py2exe (optionally) create a single file executable?
And py2app on the Mac creates an application bundle, but that is
more-or-less the equivalent on OS-X (you may not even be able to have a
Donald Stufft wrote:
On May 28, 2015 at 11:30:37 AM, Steve Dower (steve.do...@microsoft.com) wrote:
Donald Stufft wrote:
Well Python 3.4.3 binary is 4kb for me, so you'd have that + your
1KB Python script + whatever
other pieces you need.
For contrast, here are the things you need on
On 28 May 2015 at 18:04, Brian Curtin br...@python.org wrote:
Donald mentioned one earlier: command line utilities. I want a single
CLI I can deploy to my customers that doesn't make them have to
install Python or even know it's Python at all.
Yep, that's the killer for me as well.
I know
On May 28, 2015 at 12:54:34 PM, Chris Angelico (ros...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 2:28 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
oops, sorry -- I see this was addressed in another thread. Though I guess I
still don't see why single file is critical, over single thing to
install -- like a
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 May 2015 at 16:58, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
On May 28, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
You don’t need a fully functioning Python for a single file binary, you
only need enough to actually run
On May 28, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
Pex would be improved by having native support for importing .so’s from within
a zipfile via zipimport. It would also be improved by having good, built in
support for extraneous resources in the stdlib too.
Completely agree on both points.
You might want to have a look at eGenix PyRun, which gives you
an almost complete Python runtime in 4-13MB (depending on what
startup performance needs you have):
http://www.egenix.com/products/python/PyRun/
On 28.05.2015 17:58, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On May 28, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Donald Stufft
On May 28, 2015, at 09:23 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
I do think single-file executables are an important piece to Python's
long-term competitiveness.
Really? It seems to me that desktop development is dying. What are the
critical use-cases for a single file executable?
And I'd
py2exe tends to invoke DLL hell if you have various versions of VS or Office or
both installed. Because Windows.
On May 28, 2015 11:23:57 AM CDT, Chris Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov wrote:
I'm confused:
Doesn't py2exe (optionally) create a single file executable?
And py2app on the Mac creates
I agree that size is an issue, but is it really that bad? Just compare it to
the recent web surge where everyone is writing desktop apps in HTML5+CSS+JS
and bundling a huge WebKit engine in their apps binary.
Python on Windows is seriously in a bad state. IMO, what needs to be
prioritized is
Getting lost as to what thread this belongs in...
But another tack to take toward a single executable is Cython's embedding
option:
https://github.com/cython/cython/wiki/EmbeddingCython
This is a quick and dirty way to create a C executable that will then run
the cythonized code, all linked to
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Chris Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
I do think single-file executables are an important piece to Python's
long-term
competitiveness.
Really? It seems to me that desktop development is dying. What are the
critical use-cases for a
On 28 May 2015 at 16:58, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
On May 28, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
You don’t need a fully functioning Python for a single file binary, you
only need enough to actually run your application. For example, if you're
making an application that can
On May 28, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
You don’t need a fully functioning Python for a single file binary, you
only need enough to actually run your application. For example, if you're
making an application that can download files over HTTP, you don't need to
include parts of the
On May 28, 2015 at 11:30:37 AM, Steve Dower (steve.do...@microsoft.com) wrote:
Donald Stufft wrote:
Well Python 3.4.3 binary is 4kb for me, so you'd have that + your 1KB
Python script + whatever
other pieces you need.
For contrast, here are the things you need on Windows to be able
On 28 May 2015 at 17:28, Chris Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Chris Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
I do think single-file executables are an important piece to Python's
long-term competitiveness.
Really? It seems to me that
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 1:28 AM, Chris Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Chris Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov
wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
I do think single-file executables are an important piece to Python's
long-term
competitiveness.
Really? It seems
On May 28, 2015 at 12:01:22 PM, Barry Warsaw (ba...@python.org) wrote:
On May 28, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
You don’t need a fully functioning Python for a single file binary, you
only need enough to actually run your application. For example, if you're
making an application
I'm confused:
Doesn't py2exe (optionally) create a single file executable?
And py2app on the Mac creates an application bundle, but that is
more-or-less the equivalent on OS-X (you may not even be able to have a
single file executable that can access the Window Manager, for instance)
Depending
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 2:28 AM, Chris Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov wrote:
oops, sorry -- I see this was addressed in another thread. Though I guess I
still don't see why single file is critical, over single thing to
install -- like a OS-X app bundle that can just be dragged into the
On May 28, 2015 at 12:24:42 PM, Chris Barker (chris.bar...@noaa.gov) wrote:
I'm confused:
Doesn't py2exe (optionally) create a single file executable?
And py2app on the Mac creates an application bundle, but that is
more-or-less the equivalent on OS-X (you may not even be able to have
Donald Stufft wrote:
Well Python 3.4.3 binary is 4kb for me, so you'd have that + your 1KB Python
script + whatever other pieces you need.
For contrast, here are the things you need on Windows to be able to get to an
interactive prompt (I don't know how other platforms get this down to
50 matches
Mail list logo
