[Python-Dev] PEP 370 - per-user scripts directory on Windows

[Steve Dower]

Paul Moore wrote:
> 
> On 12 February 2015 at 15:37, Steve Dower <Steve.Dower at microsoft.com> wrote:
>> If venv's activate script sets it, I say go ahead and write it up. If
>> it's just virtualenv, I'd rather not explicitly depend on it,
>> especially since PEP 397's stated aim is file associations and not command
> line.
> 
> Yep, venv uses it too (see
> https://hg.python.org/cpython/file/9e10c4255277/Lib/venv/scripts/nt/activate.bat).
> 
> As people like Thomas (and me, until this issue stopped me :-)) are using the
> launcher for command line use, I think it's fair to broaden the scope to make
> command line usage more convenient. I agree that PEP
> 397 was originally focused mainly on file associations, but I think it's worth
> looking beyond that now.

That's roughly the premise behind my activate-py proposal. Use `activate` to make a virtualenv/venv the default, and `activate-py [-x[.y[-32]]]` to make a non-venv the default. I have proof of concept implementations already for cmd.exe and PowerShell and it's fairly simple, but writing up the rationale is time consuming (and also the main point - it's worth having all the problems with PATH documented in one place).

>> I've been making changes to py.exe in hg.p.o, so I hope the standalone
>> one is tracking. The msi for it as part of the official build can also
>> standalone, so maybe we should merge the two?
> 
> Hmm, sadly I don't think it is. Originally the standalone one was (I
> believe) provided by Vinay for people using Pythons that didn't have it bundled,
> and to add features (such as the new file extensions) on a quicker timescale
> than Python releases. But since he passed it to the pypa umbrella I don't think
> he's been keeping the two in sync. I've copied him in case I'm completely wrong
> on this.
> 
> Personally if we now have a standalone launcher MSI, I'd like to discontinue the
> external one completely, and officially publish the standalone launcher MSI on
> python.org as a service for users of older Pythons. There seems little reason to
> maintain 2 repos if we don't have to. We could merge in changes from the
> external repo before discontinuing it, but I'm not sure how controversial that
> would be (for example, would it need a PEP to include the 2 new extensions?)

None of my installer changes so far have had a PEP, and only a few people have complained about that :) (it does have more documentation than I've ever written for an installer before though)

IIRC, there was a PEP for executing ZIP files directly (2.6-era?), which I believe are the purpose of those extensions. If "py.exe spam.pyz" already works, I don't see any need for a PEP to add the association in the installer.

Cheers,
Steve

> Paul