[Distutils] Executable wrappers and upgrading pip (Was: Current status of PEP 439 (pip boostrapping))

Paul Moore p.f.moore at gmail.com
Sun Jul 14 21:44:08 CEST 2013

On 14 July 2013 18:06, Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io> wrote:

> Wouldn't a .py file make the command `pip.py`` and not ``pip`` ?

Not if .py is a registered extension. What I can't remember is whether it
needs to be in PATHEXT (which it isn't by default). The big problem here is
that the behaviour isn't very well documented (if at all) so the various
command shells act subtly differently. That's why I want to test, and why
it won't be a 5-minute job to do so...

But the various "replace the exe afterwards" hacks sound awfully
complicated to me - particularly as pip doesn't control the exes in the
first place, they are part of the setuptools console script entry point

My strong preference here is to remove the current use of setuptools entry
points, simply because I don't think the problem is solvable while pip
doesn't control the exe management at all. That's a non-trivial change, but
longer term maybe the best.

Question for Nick, Brett and any other core devs around: Would python-dev
be willing to include in the stdlib some sort of package for managing
exe-wrappers? I don't really want pip to manage exe wrappers any more than
I like setuptools doing so. Maybe the existing launcher can somehow double
up in that role?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20130714/9d1503ce/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list