On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Carl Meyer c...@oddbird.net wrote:
Why not modify sys.prefix?
- --
As discussed above under `Backwards Compatibility`_, this PEP proposes
to add ``sys.site_prefix`` as the prefix relative to which
site-package directories are found.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/08/2011 05:43 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
I'm actually finding I quite like the virtualenv scheme of having
sys.prefix refer to the virtual environment and sys.real_prefix
refer to the interpeter's default environment. If pyvenv used the same
For what its worth
On 11/1/2011 11:43 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
On 1 November 2011 16:40, Paul Moorep.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 November 2011 16:29, Paul Moorep.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 October 2011 20:10, Carl Meyerc...@oddbird.net wrote:
For Windows, can you point me at the nt
Not a zip file specifically - just a binary stream which organises scripts to
be
installed. If each class in a hierarchy has access to a binary stream, then
subclasses have access to the streams for base classes as well as their own
stream, and can install selectively from base class
Martin v. Löwis martin at v.loewis.de writes:
I'm not sure how many scripts you are talking about, and how long they
are. Assuming there are free, and assuming they are short, I'd not make
them separate source files again, but put them into string literals instead:
scripts = {
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/31/2011 09:57 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
That's fine, but either make sure it works with a POSIX-conformant
/bin/sh, or make the shebang explicitly bash (bash is notoriously
buggy in respect of being POSIX-compatible when named sh).
It
On 31 October 2011 20:10, Carl Meyer c...@oddbird.net wrote:
For Windows, can you point me at the nt scripts? If they aren't too
complex, I'd be willing to port to Powershell.
Thanks! They are here:
https://bitbucket.org/vinay.sajip/pythonv/src/6d057cfaaf53/Lib/venv/scripts/nt
The attached
On 1 November 2011 16:29, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 October 2011 20:10, Carl Meyer c...@oddbird.net wrote:
For Windows, can you point me at the nt scripts? If they aren't too
complex, I'd be willing to port to Powershell.
Thanks! They are here:
On 1 November 2011 16:40, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 November 2011 16:29, Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 October 2011 20:10, Carl Meyer c...@oddbird.net wrote:
For Windows, can you point me at the nt scripts? If they aren't too
complex, I'd be willing to port to
Antoine Pitrou solipsis at pitrou.net writes:
I don't understand why a zip file makes this easier (especially the
update selectively part).
Not a zip file specifically - just a binary stream which organises scripts to be
installed. If each class in a hierarchy has access to a binary stream,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/28/2011 05:10 PM, Chris McDonough wrote:
Why not modify sys.prefix?
- --
As discussed above under `Backwards Compatibility`_, this PEP proposes
to add ``sys.site_prefix`` as the prefix relative to which
site-package
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 07:50:24 + (UTC)
Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Antoine Pitrou solipsis at pitrou.net writes:
I don't understand why a zip file makes this easier (especially the
update selectively part).
Not a zip file specifically - just a binary stream which
Antoine Pitrou solipsis at pitrou.net writes:
Isn't that overengineered? We're talking about a couple of files.
We're not talking about a lot of code to do this, either - just the interface to
the existing code (which is needed anyway to install the minimal scripts in the
venv).
It's not even
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/30/2011 04:47 PM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
Antoine Pitrou solipsis at pitrou.net writes:
It would be even simpler not to process it at all, but install the
scripts as-is (without the execute bit) :)
Sure, but such an approach makes it difficult to
Carl Meyer carl at oddbird.net writes:
I don't see any advantage to zipping. If done at install-time (which is
necessary to make the scripts maintainable in the source tree) it also
has the downside of introducing another difficulty in supporting source
builds equivalently to installed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/31/2011 09:35 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
That's true, I hadn't thought of that. So then it sounds like the thing to do
is
make venv a package and have the code in venv/__init__.py, then have the
scripts
in a 'scripts' subdirectory below that.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/30/2011 06:28 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 12:10:18 + (UTC)
Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
We already have Unix shell scripts and BAT files in the source tree. Is
it really complicated to maintain these
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/31/2011 11:50 AM, Carl Meyer wrote:
I have no problem including the basic posix/nt activate scripts if
no one else is concerned about the added maintenance burden there.
I'm not sure that my cross-shell-scripting fu is sufficient to
write
On 31 October 2011 16:08, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
On 10/31/2011 11:50 AM, Carl Meyer wrote:
I have no problem including the basic posix/nt activate scripts if
no one else is concerned about the added maintenance burden there.
I'm not sure that my cross-shell-scripting fu is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/31/2011 10:28 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
On 31 October 2011 16:08, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
On 10/31/2011 11:50 AM, Carl Meyer wrote:
I have no problem including the basic posix/nt activate scripts if
no one else is concerned
Carl Meyer writes:
On 31 October 2011 16:08, Tres Seaver tsea...@palladion.com wrote:
I would say this is a perfect opportunity to delegate, in this case
to the devotees of other cults^Wshells than bash.
Good call - we'll stick with what we've got until such devotees
show up :-)
Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com writes:
All the core committers can actually publish PEPs via the PEP hg repo,
so Vinay could probably handle pushing the updates to python.org.
Submission via the PEP editors is mainly there as a backstop for cases
where there's no current core dev directly
Antoine Pitrou solipsis at pitrou.net writes:
Why would that be a problem? Do you plan to install several versions of
Python in a single VE?
No, but some packages might install headers in /include and others in
/include/pythonX.Y. I wasn't sure whether this would cause a problem with files
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 12:10:18 + (UTC)
Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
We already have Unix shell scripts and BAT files in the source tree. Is
it really complicated to maintain these additional shell scripts? Is
there a lot of code in them?
No, they're pretty small: wc -l
Antoine Pitrou solipsis at pitrou.net writes:
We already have Unix shell scripts and BAT files in the source tree.
Do we have a blessed location in the stdlib for data files in general? Although
we're talking in this instance about scripts, they're just data as far as the
venv module is
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 12:35:20 + (UTC)
Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
The other alternative would be to make venv a package with all its code
in venv/__init__.py and a scripts.zip adjacent to that. Does that seem
like a better solution?
Please don't make it a zip file. We want
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/30/2011 08:35 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
Antoine Pitrou solipsis at pitrou.net writes:
We already have Unix shell scripts and BAT files in the source
tree.
Do we have a blessed location in the stdlib for data files in
general? Although
Antoine Pitrou solipsis at pitrou.net writes:
Please don't make it a zip file. We want code to be easily trackable
and editable.
Of course. I was thinking of a directory tree in the source, subject to our
normal revision control, but processed during make or installation to be
available as a
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 15:42:11 + (UTC)
Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Antoine Pitrou solipsis at pitrou.net writes:
Please don't make it a zip file. We want code to be easily trackable
and editable.
Of course. I was thinking of a directory tree in the source, subject to our
Antoine Pitrou solipsis at pitrou.net writes:
It would be even simpler not to process it at all, but install the
scripts as-is (without the execute bit) :)
Sure, but such an approach makes it difficult to provide a mechanism which is
easily extensible; for example, with the current
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 22:47:13 + (UTC)
Vinay Sajip vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Antoine Pitrou solipsis at pitrou.net writes:
It would be even simpler not to process it at all, but install the
scripts as-is (without the execute bit) :)
Sure, but such an approach makes it
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:37:35 -0600
Carl Meyer c...@oddbird.net wrote:
What about include files?
- -
For example, ZeroMQ installs zmq.h and zmq_utils.h in $VE/include,
whereas SIP (part of PyQt4) installs sip.h by default in
$VE/include/pythonX.Y. With virtualenv,
This is really very comprehensive, thank you!
Why not modify sys.prefix?
- --
As discussed above under `Backwards Compatibility`_, this PEP proposes
to add ``sys.site_prefix`` as the prefix relative to which
site-package directories are found. This maintains
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Carl Meyer c...@oddbird.net wrote:
If it is easier to review and comment on the PEP after it is published
on python.org, I can submit it to the PEP editors anytime. Otherwise
I'll wait until we've resolved a few more of the open questions, as it's
easier for me
34 matches
Mail list logo
