Le 13/11/2017 à 19:57, Chris Barker a écrit :
This has gotten to be a big thread, and it's a pretty intractable problem, but I think there are a few fairly small things that could be done to at least make it a bit easier:
1) Add python2.exe and python3.exe files to the Windows installers -- am I insane or did Windows used to have that? I really think it did -- maybe got removed when py.exe was added.
More than that. Add pythonX.X. You may want to run Python3.5 and not Python3.6.
1a) alternatively, we could add a "py" executable to the standard linux builds, so there would be THAT one way to do it. But I think that's a "BAD IDEA" -- the whole "py" thing is not widely know or used, it's not going to show up in package install instructions for a LONG time, (actualy we could do both anyway)
It would work better and be cleaner, but is unlikely to happen. 1) is simpler and have a chance to happen.
Then "python2 -m pip install" would work everywhere (only with new installations, but at least with newbies, that's a bit more likely ...)
Yeah, if 1) happens, we should promote -m for pip.
2) Make adding to the PATH in Windows the default. I think there are really three user groups:
- newbies starting from scratch -- they want it on the PATH
- newbies with whatever left over cruft from previous installations on their systems -- they want it at the FRONT of their PATH. They SHOULD uninstall all the cruft, but if they don't this will still work with as few surprises a possible.
- not-newbies with a previous version of python they need to continue using. They can uncheck the box, or use py.exe
Agreed. But if an existing python exist in the path, there should be a warning.
3) Make --user be be automatic for pip install. Not actually the default, but pip could do a user install if you don't have the permissions for a non-user install.
Breaking compat ? Not sure people will accept. ===== Should I do a PEP with a summary of all the stuff we discussed ?