On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Manlio Perillo
Hi.
Ciao Manlio!
Basically, the idea is to build a setuptools distribution format that, like PyInstaller, is *self contained* (containing all required packages and all external shared libraries).
However, unlike PyInstaller, there are some important differences, listed in the README file.
What are the key *advantages* ? From what I can see the great difference is in packaging, since it aims at providing automatic multi-format output support; but there're already some efforts to create a .deb or a .rpm from an arbitrary, well formed python project; I'm not sure about MSI installers, but this still seems to carry some problems, as you say later. Maybe an automated support for pyinstaller packaging would be more useful, as it's already tested and being used around with success; otherwise you'd be duplicating a lot of effort from that project. Also, check zc.buildout: by properly setting the paths inside a "main dir", you can get a great jar-like effect and achieve a result which is very similar to your original intent, e.g. you can have an /opt/something dir holding your code, your scripts, and all downloads & dependency eggs. And it's *really* easy to automatically create an rpm once your project is setup that way, I think zc.buildout is already got a recipe for RPMs about that. -- Alan Franzoni -- contact me at public@[mysurname].eu