[Distutils] Distutils and Distribute roadmap (and some words on Virtualenv, Pip)

[David Lyon]

Antonio,

I completely get what you're saying.

Anyway, we shouldn't be considering dropping bdist_wininst installers
for windows unless we actually have something viable to replace them 
with. 

As much as I don't think they are the ideal solution, I'd hate to
think about having to to package installation on windows without them.

So from a pure practical point.. I totally agree with what you're
saying..

David

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 07:44:03 +0000, "A. Cavallo" <a.cavallo at cavallinux.eu>
wrote:
> None in fact and it is a make or break requirement in so many companies
> that 
> if anyone is thinking of dropping bdist_wininst should rethink of it.
> 
> If it goes away I have to discourage use of python because in no case a 
> language specific way to install things will ever replace the platform 
> standardised way.
> 
> I'll give you an anecdotal example: I worked in a company developing
> systems 
> for an extremely larger one. Our software needn't any installer: just
unzip
> 
> the thing and start to using it. Simple? You bet it cannot be any easier
> than 
> that.....
> One of the contractual requirements was about providing an "installer"
for 
> windows: no matter how easy it was to deploy the thing.
> 
> This makes sense because their way to manage systems has been
standardised
> in 
> that way (the windows way, like it or hate it): no matter how clever our 
> system was, it was extremely expensive to them doing it in "our" way.
> 
> 
>> In all seriousness, a bdist_wininst installer would be ok for installing
>> a python application, but the support for applications in distutils for
>> windows is incomplete.
> 
> It is just enough to allow people to work: dependencies are handled
> manually 
> and this goes in a project requirement document. An exception on a
missing 
> module it is just fine to give a hint about what is missing and trigger a
> user 
> action.
> 
> 
>> .egg files are perfect for windows. But the neccessary python support
>> to make them work properly isn't complete either.
>> What I am referring to here, is the shell extensions to the registry
>> to make them load automatically.
>> It would be so nice if we could double click on an egg file on pypi,
>> download it, and install it automatically.
>> I can't think of anything simpler. That would be proper native windows
>> support.
> 
> I disagree here and reinventing a package/dependencies manager to compete
> with 
> cpan and rpm/dpkg/yum/zypper/synaptic/windows installers ... thanks no I
> don't 
> feel any need for it.
> 
> Ever heard of SuSE one click installer? It does exactly this for rpms. 
> In windows clicking on a web link with an *.exe trigger the action you're
> just 
> asking for already: no need to support another language-specific layer.
> 
> 
>> We would only have to add one script to distutils and a few registry
>> settings for this could be accomplished. It could be progressively
>> rolled out with new python versions.
> 
> Sure and imagine a company stretching across three continents with
hundred 
> developers and many more users and slightly different settings/python 
> versions: do you think anything like this will ever work in real life?
How 
> does anybody going to handle the chain of trust (yes sooner or later
> somebody 
> will ask THIS question)?
> Again my solution will be easy: drop python off the list of language to 
> develop with.
> 
> 
>> >From my perspective, PJE did a heck of a lot of good work. EGG files
>>
>> are a good idea. As long as they get unpacked and installed as any
>> other python package on arrival.
> 
> Excellent last point aiming straight to the problem: I cannot agree more.
> 
> Regards,
> Antonio
> _______________________________________________
> Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig