On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 08:22:40AM +0400, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer wrote:
>
> What do you think of adding PyInstaller as an official
> part of CPython?
Before asking *us*, you ought to ask what the PyInstaller developers
think of the idea of:
- relinquishing copyright to the PSF;
- operating u
>
> Before asking *us*, you ought to ask what the PyInstaller developers
> think of the idea of:
>
> - relinquishing copyright to the PSF;
> - operating under the control of the Python core developers and steering
> council, under their terms;
> - releasing versions under the schedule of the Pyth
Greetings list,
> Suppose you distribute a .py script to a million people. Your script is
faulty due to a bug in the Python interpreter or std lib. But you don't
need to do anything to patch your script: you just tell people to
upgrade to the latest version of Python where the bug is fixed. Or you
Hi Abdur,
On 19.11.2020 10:02, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer wrote:
> Before asking *us*, you ought to ask what the PyInstaller developers
> think of the idea of:
>
> - relinquishing copyright to the PSF;
> - operating under the control of the Python core developers and steering
>
Disclaimer: I'm not arguing for or against having pyinstaller or the
like in the stdlib. Probably slightly against. Anyway...
On 19Nov2020 15:59, Chris Angelico wrote:
>Producing native executables is an attractive nuisance. [...stuff...]
To me, the beauty of things like pyinstaller is that the
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 10:29:38AM +0100, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> Note that this does not mean "relinquishing" the copyright as
> Steven put it. The copyright owners keep their copyright. They
> only give permission specifically to the PSF to relicense the
> code.
Oops, thank you for the correctio
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 01:02:17PM +0400, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer wrote:
> Thank you for your input Mr Steven.
> If we go along the same lines, i should
> begin checking whether anyone who replies
> forms part of the SC or not, whether they
> have the right or not to reply to this thread etc.
Th
On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 19:44:57 +1100
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 08:22:40AM +0400, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer wrote:
> >
> > What do you think of adding PyInstaller as an official
> > part of CPython?
>
> Before asking *us*, you ought to ask what the PyInstaller developers
>
> On 19 Nov 2020, at 08:48, Paul Moore wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 07:42, Stéfane Fermigier wrote:
>
>> But cooperation between the PyInstaller team and the Python Packaging
>> Authority, if this doesn't happen already, could probably help.
>
> It doesn't, but that is simply because t
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 8:57 PM Cameron Simpson wrote:
>
> Disclaimer: I'm not arguing for or against having pyinstaller or the
> like in the stdlib. Probably slightly against. Anyway...
>
> On 19Nov2020 15:59, Chris Angelico wrote:
> >Producing native executables is an attractive nuisance. [...s
On 20/11/20 12:24 am, Chris Angelico wrote:
Have you considered the value of using zipapp
You get all the advantages of a single runnable file, and
all the advantages of NOT including the full Python interpreter with
it.
It won't have all the properties of an app bundle on MacOSX, though.
collections.Counter has most_common([n]) method which returns the most
common n elements of the counter, but in case of a tie the result is
unspecified --- whereas in practice the order of insertion breaks the
tie. For example:
>>> Counter(["a","a","b","a","b","c","c","d"]).most_common(2)
Perhaps there could be something in the std-lib that allowed packaging into an
executable but with some limitations, as a toy example: only supporting the
std-lib dependencies. There is some precedence for minimal implementations
existing in std-lib and third party libraries being more capable e
On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 15:03, Mathew Elman wrote:
>
> Perhaps there could be something in the std-lib that allowed packaging into
> an executable but with some limitations, as a toy example: only supporting
> the std-lib dependencies. There is some precedence for minimal
> implementations exist
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 02:05:02AM +1300, Greg Ewing wrote:
> On 20/11/20 12:24 am, Chris Angelico wrote:
> >
> >Have you considered the value of using zipapp
>
> >You get all the advantages of a single runnable file, and
> >all the advantages of NOT including the full Python interpreter with
> >
TL/DR: A new built-in attribute who's purpose is to provide a simple way for
developers to detect the Python implementation like CPython, JPython,
IronPython and PyPy among other information.
Ok, so the reason I'm suggesting this is for another suggestion I'll submit a
later date (once I feel t
This is called sys.version, right?
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 3:21 PM William Pickard wrote:
> TL/DR: A new built-in attribute who's purpose is to provide a simple way
> for developers to detect the Python implementation like CPython, JPython,
> IronPython and PyPy among other information.
>
> Ok, so
Also there is sys.implementation
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 11:25 PM David Mertz wrote:
> This is called sys.version, right?
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 3:21 PM William Pickard
> wrote:
>
>> TL/DR: A new built-in attribute who's purpose is to provide a simple way
>> for developers to detect the Python
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 08:21:26PM -, William Pickard wrote:
> TL/DR: A new built-in attribute who's purpose is to provide a simple
> way for developers to detect the Python implementation like CPython,
> JPython, IronPython and PyPy among other information.
>>> import sys
>>> sys.i
On 11/19/2020 2:17 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 02:05:02AM +1300, Greg Ewing wrote:
On 20/11/20 12:24 am, Chris Angelico wrote:
Have you considered the value of using zipapp
You get all the advantages of a single runnable file, and
all the advantages of NOT including the
On 20/11/20 8:17 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Firstly, does that matter? And secondly, what would it take to give it
those additional properties?
It matters because it won't look or behave like a MacOSX app to
the user.
An app bundle comes with metadata that specifies a bunch of things,
such as
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 9:22 AM Eric V. Smith wrote:
>
>
> On 11/19/2020 2:17 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 02:05:02AM +1300, Greg Ewing wrote:
> >> On 20/11/20 12:24 am, Chris Angelico wrote:
> >>> Have you considered the value of using zipapp
> >>> You get all the advant
On 20/11/20 11:32 am, Chris Angelico wrote:
It's very
tempting to think "oh, I could just make it easier for my users, and
then they don't have to think about anything". But what happens when
there's a security patch for Python? Are they going to continue to not > think
about the dependency?
T
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 9:57 AM Greg Ewing wrote:
>
> On 20/11/20 11:32 am, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > It's very
> > tempting to think "oh, I could just make it easier for my users, and
> > then they don't have to think about anything". But what happens when
> > there's a security patch for Python?
On 11/19/2020 5:32 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 9:22 AM Eric V. Smith wrote:
On 11/19/2020 2:17 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 02:05:02AM +1300, Greg Ewing wrote:
On 20/11/20 12:24 am, Chris Angelico wrote:
Have you considered the value of using zi
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:05 AM Eric V. Smith wrote:
> I just don't think we need to be immediately dismissive of people's
> desire to create a platform native executable that disguises the fact
> that the code is written in Python.
>
I never said it shouldn't happen. But having zipapp in the st
On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 22:55, Greg Ewing wrote:
>
> On 20/11/20 11:32 am, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > It's very
> > tempting to think "oh, I could just make it easier for my users, and
> > then they don't have to think about anything". But what happens when
> > there's a security patch for Python? A
On 19Nov2020 18:03, Eric V. Smith wrote:
>
>On 11/19/2020 5:32 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 9:22 AM Eric V. Smith wrote:
>>>But even that doesn't help with the use case of wanting an executable
>>>without having to install Python first. I've had need to ship an
>>>executabl
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:25 AM Paul Moore wrote:
> But what
> you end up with is someone discovering that the file you sent with
> doesn't work "because it's written in Python, not in language that writes native exes>".
>
The converse is someone discovering that the file you sent doesn't
work
On 20/11/20 12:24 pm, Paul Moore wrote:
I'm not sure about an installer. To me that means integrating with
system "installed apps" mechanisms.
By "installer" I just mean something that gets installed
the way users expect on that platform. On Windows that means
something you run that puts the ri
On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 23:13, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:05 AM Eric V. Smith wrote:
> > I just don't think we need to be immediately dismissive of people's
> > desire to create a platform native executable that disguises the fact
> > that the code is written in Python.
>
On 11/19/2020 6:24 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 22:55, Greg Ewing wrote:
I still think it would be useful to have some kind of basic
installer-creating functionality in the stdlib. Not bundling
Python could be the default, or even the only option if
you're that concerned about
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 9:54 PM Greg Ewing
wrote:
> Essentially the idea is this: If the loop body contains a def or lambda
> that captures the loop variable, then on each iteration, a new binding
> is created, instead of changing an existing binding.
>
> Note that this is *not* the same as intro
On 11/19/20 7:04 PM, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2020 at 23:13, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:05 AM Eric V. Smith wrote:
>>> I just don't think we need to be immediately dismissive of people's
>>> desire to create a platform native executable that disguises the fa
Summary up to now:
- Must ask permission to be integrated
- If integrated, tied to CPython's release cycle
- They can ask the PSF for grants
- It would be useful to cooperate on possible changes to CPython and the
packaging landscape to make it easier to write tools like this.
- Consider zipapp
-
On 11/15/20 12:11 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
It would be good if the PEP gave a survey of the practical experience of
other languages with pattern matching:
- are there languages which require an exact match, with no left over
keys? what issues, if any, do users have with that choice?
- whic
I think you've missed a couple of points (important, IMHO) in your summary:
- Some people, including me, don't think at this point this is a good idea
to integrate PyInstaller in the Python code base.
- There is room for cooperation between the PyInstaller developers (and
users) and the Python Pac
On 2020-11-19 14:32, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 9:22 AM Eric V. Smith wrote:
On 11/19/2020 2:17 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 02:05:02AM +1300, Greg Ewing wrote:
>> On 20/11/20 12:24 am, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> Have you considered the value of using
> - Some people, including me, don't think at this point this is a good
idea to integrate PyInstaller in the Python code base.
The maintainer of Py2App said
> FWIW I don’t think that bundling any of these tools with Python is useful
at this time.
Which i overlooked as it was not the maintainer o
39 matches
Mail list logo
