[Python-Dev] Re: Path hacking

[James C. Ahlstrom]

Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > Even worse, it means that exceptions.py and site.py can not
> > be found at all except using the normal PYTHONPATH, and
> > putting their path in Spam_path will *not* work.
> 
> Why would you want your own exceptions.py and site.py?

I don't.  I never change Python library files.  I am worried
that they won't be found because I don't trust PYTHONPATH.
 
> > Oh dear, I think I heard no instead of yes. Are you saying that if
> > someone else installs a Python app on my customer's machine after I do,
> > and sets a registry entry which sayes to use c:/other/path/to/site.py
> > for site.py (as he may very well want to do), then if my Python program
> > depends on getting my copy of site.py from my directory, it will then
> > use the other copy instead and may very well fail?
> 
> Again - why would anyone register their own site.py?

I wouldn't, I am worried that someone else will break my installation.
Remember that site.py was invented as a site-specific module, although
that function moved to sitecustomize.py.

> I presume using GetModuleFileName()?  Please send me the patch!

Yes, and OK.

> > JimA's conjecture:  It is currently impossible to
> > ship a Python app which can not be damaged by the installation of a
> > second Python app without using a hacked custom binary.
> 
> Sounds right.  All tricks to make the app unique require using a
> different registry key, which requires a change to the DLL.  However,
> you can do this without recompiling!  The version string is used is
> embedded in a resource, so you can patch it using some kind of
> resource editor.  Mark Hammond planned it this way!

I don't understand this.  Is there documentation?

Jim Ahlstrom