[Python-ideas] Looking for input to help with the pip situation
ncoghlan at gmail.com
Thu Nov 16 20:57:29 EST 2017
On 17 November 2017 at 05:15, Chris Barker <chris.barker at noaa.gov> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Steve Dower <steve.dower at python.org>
>> If you write such a PEP, please also research and write up the issues
>> with modifying PATH on Windows (they're largely scattered throughout
>> bugs.p.o and earlier discussions on python-dev).
> Is anyone proposing doing anything new with that? (other than changing the
> My preferred solution for this is to rename "py.exe" to "python.exe"
> I was going to propose that in this thread, but then thought: "there has
> GOT to be a reason why that reall obvious solution wan't done in the first
> place", and didn't have time to go back and research it.
As far as I recall, the arguments against it are:
- wanting the regular executable and the launcher to be able to coexist in
the same build target directory
- not wanting the regular python executable to prevent access to the
launcher at a shell prompt
- not wanting the launcher at a shell prompt to prevent access to the
regular executable at a shell prompt
However, https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0397/ doesn't spell those out,
it just states what the launcher's name will be, and emphasises that the
main purpose is to provide a sensible target for file associations after
the "always use the most recently installed version" assumption broke down:
Addressing them now:
* as long as the extra hard links are only generated at install time, there
also won't be any problems with build directory name conflicts.
* the launcher will always be available a `py`, regardless of the current
* PATH in a venv will still put the regular python executable ahead of the
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-ideas