<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
On 3/20/2012 11:50 AM, Merlijn van Deen wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CADJO0eJBBxw8rS64XJQ4+aYimFWas30kn=cgbe5+EPPWRNzKxQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">As this is being considered an 'incompatible change' on the bug
tracker item [1] in any case, I'd like to mention that this might also
be a convenient moment to re-think the default install location. After
all, software is supposed to be installed in %programfiles% on
windows, not in c:\<program name>.
I asked a question about this on IRC, to which the response was that
there were two main reasons to install python in c:\pythonxy:
1 - issues due to spaces ('Program Files') or non-ascii characters in
the path ('Fișiere Program' on a Romanian windows). These issues are
supposed to be fixed by now (?).
2 - issues due to permissions - installing python / packages in
%programfiles% may require administrator rights.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I also wondered about %programfiles%, and had heard of issue #1, and
would hope that it is not a real issue in modern times, but haven't
attempted to test to determine otherwise.<br>
<br>
However, the in the first quoted paragraph there is an incorrect
statement... the last sentence is simply not true. While software
that is installed "for everyone" on the computer is supposed to be
installed in %programfiles%, software that is installed for "user
only" need not be, and in fact, it is recommended (at least by
installer software I've used) that the alternate path is (XP)
C:\Documents and Settings\<user>\Local Settings\Application
Data or (7) C:\Users\<user>\AppData\Local (I think, I haven't
found certain documentation about this).<br>
<br>
Or is it even possible to install something for "user only"
anymore? I haven't been involved with installers lately (have been
doing portable apps, no install needed). Certainly the "program
files (x86)" business adds an extra wrinkle to it, somehow, on 64
bit machines, and I'm not hitting the right sites on my Google
searches to discover anything about that, so that's why I'm
wondering if it has been deprecated.<br>
<br>
Speaking of which, it would be nice to have "Portable Python" be
part of the standard reportoire of packages available.<br>
</body>
</html>