[Distutils] [Python-Dev] How we can get rid of eggs for 2.6 and beyond
mhammond at skippinet.com.au
Thu Apr 3 00:35:59 CEST 2008
Even installing shortcuts doesn't need to munge the registry! But
regardless, you seem to be arguing that setuptools should morph into a
full-blown, general purpose installer for python build apps, capable of
doing all kinds of platform specific things which any app may desire - and
while I don't agree with that, it wasn't what was being discussed at all.
Writing and installing a Python extension does not need to munge the
registry. Installing a general purpose application, written in Python or
anything else, will require, in the general case, anything you could
From: Dave Peterson [mailto:dpeterson at enthought.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 2 April 2008 3:30 PM
Cc: Mark Hammond; distutils-sig
Subject: Re: [Distutils] [Python-Dev] How we can get rid of eggs for 2.6 and
Mark Hammond wrote:
(Note: I'm aware that people believe it to be necessary to munge the
Windows registry when installing Python packages; I just don't agree
with the practice, and don't think we should distort Python's process
to coddle it).
Whoever thinks it necessary is misguided. Installing a package doesn't
require munging the registry and none of the popular installation techniques
do. Installing Python itself does, and some packages have special
requirements (eg, pywin32 registering COM objects), but in general, Python
packages on Windows can ignore the registry.
I guess I'll step up and volunteer myself as 'misguided' then. :-)
I would very much like to be able to package up my application or library
such that it created desktop/start menu/quicklaunch icons for various things
like running the app, running examples, opening docs for browsing, etc. I'd
also like to be able to associate certain file types with
executables/scripts/shortcuts provided by the installation of my project.
After all, Windows users in general are not as technically adapt when it
comes to command line tools so setting up these nice GUI ways of doing
things adds usability significantly.
You could argue (like Phillip has) that these operations should be done via
an explicitly user-invoked script, and I can buy that for the standard
version of the tool. You could also argue that installing applications
(which is generally where these kinds of desires come into play) is not the
job of the tools we're discussing. But it seems to me that the existing
capabilities of setuptools are 80% (or more) of the effort in creating a
tool that would allow installation and efficient maintenance of large
Python-based applications, such as what my employer delivers to customers.
All that being said, I'm fine with the idea that the standard library
version of the tool does not enable this. Just so long as nothing is done
to actively prevent extensions of that tool to do this sort of thing for
those who need or want it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Distutils-SIG