[issue12394] Packaging should provide better support for executable scripts on Windows

[Vinay Sajip]

Vinay Sajip <vinay_sajip at yahoo.co.uk> added the comment:

@Tim: It had gone under my radar, thanks for the link!

I don't know if/when it will be accepted (i.e. whether before 3.3), so my suggestion could be considered as a fallback alternative which works now. If the PEP 397 launcher is available, then of course we should use that.

Of course PEP 397 does not support 'pythonw' in shebang lines, but the "pythonw" I am suggesting here will not appear in the final output script anyway. It's more of a hint to build_scripts indicating the launcher to use. It seems this choice is still required, since from a quick reading of PEP 397, I couldn't see how the user could just type "demo" for an eponymous script in a virtualenv and get the correct launcher (console or GUI).

----------

_______________________________________
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue12394>
_______________________________________