On 13 August 2013 16:58, PJ Eby <pje@telecommunity.com> wrote:

> 5. Files in use can't be replaced. Because a Windows executable that's in use
> is not allowed to be overwritten,

But they can be renamed, and deleted afterwards. For example, when
updating, you can do the simple dance of:

1. delete scriptname.exe.deleteme if it exists
2. rename scriptname.exe to scriptname.exe.deleteme
3. replace scriptname.exe
4. try to delete the .deleteme file created in step 2, ignoring errors.

And since this only needs to be done for the wrappers on installation
tools themselves (pip, easy_install, etc.), it's not like a lot of
people are going to have to write this code.

This works, but is an ugly, fragile workaround. It's *not* a huge problem, it's just how executables work on Windows, and all installers have to deal with this dance (it's why a lot of things need a reboot to complete installation - the "delete on next reboot" API). But it's not *nice*.

I would never use exe wrappers for my own personal scripts - I *always* write them as .py files and rely on PATHEXT. I only use exe wrappers for commands installed as part of a Python package (pip.exe, nosetests.exe, etc). That says something about how friendly they are as a general tool. On the other hand, it also acts as a reminder that when used in a suitably managed situation (stuff installed by pip/easy_install) the ugliness of exe wrappers is hidden well enough to be a non-issue. So while Jason may be persuaded to retain exe wrappers for setuptools, I doubt he'd want to use them for his personal scripts (if I read his posts correctly). I know I won't.

On another point you mention, Cygwin Python should be using Unix-style shell script wrappers, not Windows-style exes, surely? The whole point of Cygwin is that it emulates Unix, after all... So I don't see that as an argument either way.

Paul.