Kevin Walzer a écrit :
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
What platform are you doing this on? On the Linux platform,
dependency hell of this sort is pretty much unavoidable,
Yes it is. EasyInstall works just fine.
You can install a beast like PyQt with easy_install? Meaning, that it
will
On May 16, 7:44 am, Tina I [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A binary would be ideal. I'll look into the freeze modules and
Pyinstaller. Even if they don't handle huge things like Qt it would be a
step in the right direction if it handles smaller third part modules.
And maybe the smartest thing to do
David Boddie wrote:
On May 16, 7:44 am, Tina I [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A binary would be ideal. I'll look into the freeze modules and
Pyinstaller. Even if they don't handle huge things like Qt it would be a
step in the right direction if it handles smaller third part modules.
And maybe the
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
Kevin Walzer a écrit :
Note that if you go that way, neither Windows nor MacOS X are actually
able to cleanly manage such dependencies (which is why the usual
solution on these platforms - or at least on Windows - is to just bundle
everything in a single big
Tina I wrote:
Kevin Walzer wrote:
And maybe the smartest thing to do would be to dump PyQt and just go for
tkinter, however ugly it is :/
Tkinter doesn't have to be ugly.
I sell a proprietary Tkinter app commercially on OS X:
http://www.codebykevin.com/phynchronicity-running.png
It takes
Kevin Walzer wrote:
Tina I wrote:
Kevin Walzer wrote:
And maybe the smartest thing to do would be to dump PyQt and just go
for tkinter, however ugly it is :/
Tkinter doesn't have to be ugly.
I sell a proprietary Tkinter app commercially on OS X:
Hi list,
Is there a preferred way to distribute programs that depends on third
party modules like PyQt, Beautifulsoup etc? I have used setuptools and
just having the setup script check for the existence of the required
modules. If they're not found I have it exit with a message that it need
Tina I a écrit :
Hi list,
Is there a preferred way to distribute programs that depends on third
party modules like PyQt, Beautifulsoup etc? I have used setuptools and
just having the setup script check for the existence of the required
modules. If they're not found I have it exit with a
Tina I wrote:
Hi list,
Is there a preferred way to distribute programs that depends on third
party modules like PyQt, Beautifulsoup etc? I have used setuptools and
just having the setup script check for the existence of the required
modules. If they're not found I have it exit with a
Kevin Walzer a écrit :
Tina I wrote:
Hi list,
Is there a preferred way to distribute programs that depends on third
party modules like PyQt, Beautifulsoup etc? I have used setuptools and
just having the setup script check for the existence of the required
modules. If they're not found
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
What platform are you doing this on? On the Linux platform,
dependency hell of this sort is pretty much unavoidable,
Yes it is. EasyInstall works just fine.
You can install a beast like PyQt with easy_install? Meaning, that it
will download and build/install not
Kevin Walzer wrote:
What platform are you doing this on? On the Linux platform, dependency
hell of this sort is pretty much unavoidable, because there are so many
different packaging systems (apt, rpm, and so on): it's standard to let
the package manager handle these dependencies. And
Jason wrote:
A non-python programming friend of mine has said that any programs made
with Python must be distributed with, or an alternative link, to the
source of the program.
Is this true?
There seems to be some confusion regarding what you are asking.
Are you asking about legal issues
A non-python programming friend of mine has said that any programs made
with Python must be distributed with, or an alternative link, to the
source of the program.
Is this true?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Jason wrote:
A non-python programming friend of mine has said that any programs made
with Python must be distributed with, or an alternative link, to the source of
the program.
Is this true?
no.
the license is here:
http://www.python.org/doc/Copyright.html
Python is absolutely
Jason wrote:
A non-python programming friend of mine has said that any programs made
with Python must be distributed with, or an alternative link, to the
source of the program.
Is this true?
Sorta, but not really. Typically, you might distribute the source (.py)
files, but if you
the license is here:
http://www.python.org/doc/Copyright.html
Python is absolutely free, even for commercial use (including
resale). There is no GNU-like copyleft restriction.
except that the current license is (no longer?) linked from that page.
the current license is here:
Jeff Schwab wrote:
Sorta, but not really. Typically, you might distribute the source (.py)
files, but if you don't want to do that, you can distribute the
compiled .pyc files instead. Python creates these files automatically
when your modules are imported.
But remember that Python bytecode
Leif K-Brooks wrote:
But remember that Python bytecode can be easily decompiled with a
publicly-available program.
I hope it is not considered too antisocial to bring it up here, but
there is always PyObfuscate:
http://www.lysator.liu.se/~astrand/projects/pyobfuscate/
-Steve Bergman
--
A non-python programming friend of mine has said that any programs made
with Python must be distributed with, or an alternative link, to the
source of the program.
Yes, and you must also include a blank sheet, signed by you in blood.
Seriously, whatever the license of Python itself is, a
Wouter van Ooijen (www.voti.nl) wrote:
Yes, and you must also include a blank sheet, signed by you in blood.
I thought you only had to do that if you were submitting a patch to
MySQL, Qt, OpenOffice, or OpenSolaris. ;-)
-Steve Bergman
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
21 matches
Mail list logo
