Mailman 3 June 2004 - Distutils-SIG

IndispensableSoftWare on cd... needy? seeBody
by Dynavox 13 Jun '04

13 Jun '04

Distutils-sig http://BENBCE.info/OE017/?affiliate_id=233642&campaign_id=601 http://KANLDL.info/OE017/?affiliate_id=233642&campaign_id=601 Bye-bye

1 0

software
by fbarros＠fi.upm.es 13 Jun '04

13 Jun '04

Microsoft Windows XP Professional 2002 Retail price: $270.99 Our low Price: $50.00 You Save: $220.00 Adobe Photoshop 7.0 Retail price: $609.99 Our low Price: $60.00 You Save: $550.00 Microsoft Office XP Professional 2002 Retail price: $579.99 Our low Price: $60.00 You Save: $510.00 Adobe Illustrator 10 Retail price: $270.99 Our low Price: $60.00 You Save: $210.00 Corel Draw Graphics Suite 11 Retail price: $270.99 Our low Price: $60.00 You Save: $210.00 Delphi 7 Retail price: $404.99 Our low Price: $60.00 You Save: $335.00 And more!!! Why so cheap? All the software is OEM- Meaning that you don't get the box and the manual with your software. All you will receive is the actual software and your unique registration code. All the software is in the English language for PC. Our offers are unbeatable and we always update our prices to make sure we provide you with the best possible offers. Hurry up and place your order, because our supplies are limited. Our site is http://FGMKHJ.info/OE017/?affiliate_id=233763&campaign_id=601 uns * ub - scribe http://FKEFCK.biz/diamondtron.php?affiliate_id=233763&campaign_id=601 djfkoyxr vjobp hithbgw lqmqz cuznjoq vudj tacnjr pbza jhbpent qfhta hhkwzgpc qjdu ynloolo zuqoyfx pkf illq ytqezuw ixptk d xbpma

1 0

Re: [Distutils] Installing scripts
by Mark W. Alexander 10 Jun '04

10 Jun '04

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 06:56:53PM -0400, Tim Peters wrote: > [Mark W. Alexander] > ... > > If it's a "Fred thing", then call me Fred ;) I despise having to call > > whatever.sh, something.py and heavenforbid.pl. From the command line, > > what do I care what the script is written in, or even if it's a script, > > an ELF. or an alias. Extensions are fine for developers, because they > > need to know implementation details. User's do not, and making them know > > is just rude (IMNSHO). > > You can't tell me about users: I have two sisters <wink>. For years, they > saw ".pdf" and ".html" etc as just part of the file name. "." didn't mean > anything special to them -- that's a learned convention. Then again, my > definition of "user" doesn't include people who run scripts from shell > windows either. Sisters?! Wait 'til you have a wife & kids! I think we're agreed that extensions stay on Windows scripts. On *nix, I think they're a nuisance on executables. Also note that official Debian packages strips the .pl, .py, .sh, etc., extensions off when upstream developers don't, I _think_ as a matter of policy. So maybe we're back to a bdist_* based implementation? mwa -- Mark W. Alexander slash(a)dotnetslash.net The contents of this message authored by Mark W. Alexander are released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license. Copyright of quoted materials are retained by the original author(s). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/

1 0

Re: [Distutils] Installing scripts
by Mark W. Alexander 10 Jun '04

10 Jun '04

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 06:50:41PM -0400, Tim Peters wrote: > It has no chance of being popular unless it does *something* to supply a > usable UI. The DOS box Windows brings up by default for a .py file isn't > usable: the font and size are never what you want, and the DOS box vanishes > the instant Python exits (in particular, if Python exits because of an > uncaught exception, all evidence vanishes). Actually, I meant to include a comment to that effect (that it wouldn't be popular) so I get your point. However, a but ugly app that no one cares to use can evolve into something attractive and powerfull if discovered by someone who knows how to put lipstick on a pig. So my point is, Distutils should support sucky applications equally as well as marvelous, magical ones. <g> mwa -- Mark W. Alexander slash(a)dotnetslash.net The contents of this message authored by Mark W. Alexander are released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license. Copyright of quoted materials are retained by the original author(s). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/

1 0

Re: [Distutils] Installing scripts
by Mark W. Alexander 10 Jun '04

10 Jun '04

On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 06:20:20PM -0400, Tim Peters wrote: > [Fred L. Drake, Jr.] > ... > > We just need to make sure the .py is there on Windows and not on > > installed scripts on Unix. > > I have to ask: is this "a Fred thing", or common Linux fashion? Back in my > Unix days, I always left the .py extension on my Python scripts, probably > because I'm not Barry (i.e., I refused to stuff emacs turds inside my files, > and my emacs auto-mode trigger was something like *\.py$). If it's a "Fred thing", then call me Fred ;) I despise having to call whatever.sh, something.py and heavenforbid.pl. From the command line, what do I care what the script is written in, or even if it's a script, an ELF. or an alias. Extensions are fine for developers, because they need to know implementation details. User's do not, and making them know is just rude (IMNSHO). mwa -- Mark W. Alexander slash(a)dotnetslash.net The contents of this message authored by Mark W. Alexander are released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license. Copyright of quoted materials are retained by the original author(s). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/

1 0

Re: [Distutils] Installing scripts
by Bob Kimble 10 Jun '04

10 Jun '04

On Thursday 10 June 2004 06:20 pm, Tim Peters wrote: > I have to ask: is this "a Fred thing", or common Linux fashion? Back in > my Unix days, I always left the .py extension on my Python scripts, > probably because I'm not Barry (i.e., I refused to stuff emacs turds inside > my files, and my emacs auto-mode trigger was something like *\.py$). I leave the .py extensions on all my Python scripts. I generally use .sh for shell scripts, too. I use symbolic links if I want a version without the extension. .... Bob

1 0

Re: [Distutils] Installing scripts
by Fred L. Drake, Jr. 10 Jun '04

10 Jun '04

On Thursday 10 June 2004 02:31 pm, Tim Peters wrote: > At least stick a .txt extension on text files users may want to read. > Does it also offend delicate non-Windows sensibilities, e.g., to see > README.txt instead of README? If it does, the issue is broader than just It doesn't bother me, but I can't speak for others. It's not clear when .txt extensions should be added; things like the README are most useful when a distribution is unpacked. That indicates the "sdist" command is a good candidate, but I don't know how often that's actually used (rather than just rolling a tarball from a CVS or Subversion export). There's also not good metadata support for documentation files in general in distutils. It would be nice to improve that situation. Again, we have cross-platform issues (CHM files on Windows, text files that need line-end normalization, and probably lots more). -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at acm.org> PythonLabs at Zope Corporation

2 1

Installing scripts
by Fred L. Drake, Jr. 10 Jun '04

10 Jun '04

Tim Peters and I have recently been beating our heads over what the right approach to deal with scripts in cross-platform software. It's not clear that we've reached any conclusions at all, but I think this is an interesting issue for the Distutils SIG, since distutils is involved in installing scripts. The issue is that the expectations of end-users on Unix and Windows differ substantially. Unix users generally expect that scripts will not have extensions and don't need to have a specific interpreter named on the command line (since that's what sh-bang lines are for). Windows users really expect an icon to click on, and are massively confused by extension-less files. Windows encourages this confusion. Adding a .py extension to Python scripts on Windows allows the user to at least not have to add the path to the Python interpreter on the command line if they want to run the script using the default Python installation (meaning "the one registered to handle the .py extension"). This can be handled by passing a different value to the current script= keyword argument to distutils.core.setup() based on os.name, and having versions of scripts for Windows and Unix. This seems tedious at best, but works, and allows flexibility in implementing the scripts differently for the two platforms. I'm interested in hearing about how others are handling this issue for software that's intended to work on both Unix and Windows. Is there a better approach? I'd love to find a better way to support end-user expectations across platforms, especially if it could involve less magic in the setup.py script. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at acm.org> PythonLabs at Zope Corporation

2 2

Remark concerning msvc 7.0 for c/c++ extensions for python in windows
by Peter Vandersteegen 09 Jun '04

09 Jun '04

Hello, I have a small remark concerning msvc 7.0 and the pre-compiled version of python in windows. Recently I tried to compile the source-code for a library named PyMat, a link between python and matlab. I wanted to use this library in windows with python2.3. I tried to compile with microsoft visual c++ 7.0 ( NET ) and disutils. The pre-compiled version of python 2.3 is however compiled with msvc 6.0... This seemed to be a problem for disutils. I recieved following error/ following exception is raised: "error: Python was built with version 6 of Visual Studio, and extensions need to be built with the same version of the compiler, but it isn't installed." Thx to google, I found the following sollution: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/patches/2004-May/014807.html In $python_root$/lib/disutils/msvccompiler.py you have to comment out some lines (approx: line 214) ## if len (self.__paths) == 0: ## raise DistutilsPlatformError, \ ## ("Python was built with version %s of Visual Studio, " ## "and extensions need to be built with the same " ## "version of the compiler, but it isn't installed." % self.__version)The compiled library works correct. The library compiled and seems to work correct! Now my question is: is it absolutely necessary to compile everything with the same msvc as python is compiled with? If not, is the line in msvccompiler.py absolutely necessary? Could this be replaced with a warning, instead of raising an exception? Simply aborting completely the compilation proces seems kind of drastic. greetz and thx for reading so far Peter ps. I presume this problem still is present in python 2.4, because msvccompiler.py still contains the conflicting lines in the cvs-version...

2 1

Can't get the job because you don't have a university degree? Wrong!
by Vanessa Church 09 Jun '04

09 Jun '04

1 0