[Distutils] Executable wrappers and upgrading pip (Was: Current status of PEP 439 (pip boostrapping))
ncoghlan at gmail.com
Mon Jul 15 00:06:15 CEST 2013
On 15 Jul 2013 05:44, "Paul Moore" <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?
Not sure it fits the launcher, but having something along those lines in
the stdlib makes sense (especially in the context of a pip bundling PEP).
Another option we may want to consider is an actual msi installer for pip
(I'm not sure that would actually help, but it's worth looking into), as
well as investigating what other self-updating Windows apps (like Firefox)
do to handle this problem.
> Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG at python.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Distutils-SIG