crossplatform py2exe - would it be useful?

Bengt Richter bokr at oz.net
Sun Aug 10 07:03:07 CEST 2003


On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 19:59:42 +0100, Marc Wilson <marc at cleopatra.co.uk> wrote:

>In comp.lang.python,  Alex Martelli <aleax at aleax.it> (Alex Martelli) wrote
>in <xX9Za.60603$cl3.1904044 at news2.tin.it>::
>
>|That's two strikes against the ".uff" approach and in favour of the
>|'.exe' one.  I can see potential advantages for the '.uff', too, in
>|widely different scenarios; but these issues indicate to me that it
>|just can't replace the '.exe'.  Therefore, I would suggest you pursue
>|the .uff as a third-party alternative -- while, on the other hand,
>|"makers of .exe's" have long been available as third-party alternatives,
>|and the thrilling aspect of this latest round of ideas is that we seem
>|to be very close to being able to integrate them in the Python standard
>|distribution, with a resulting potential for an interesting boost to
>|Python's popularity.  It makes a psychological difference, quite a big
>|one, whether some functionality is integrated in a standard distribution
>|or has to be separately downloaded and installed as a third-party add-on.
>|
>|"Ability to build directly executable files" would make a big 'selling'
>|point if it were in Python's standard distribution, while "ability to
>|wrap files into an archive which still needs a separate utility to
>|unwrap and run", useful as it may be, just doesn't have the same level
>|of raw appeal to typical punters currently wondering about Python.
>
>For instance, I have written a couple of little progs in Python to solve
>problems for a client.  I need to make them into executables, because, while
>he's willing to install an .exe I've written, he's less sure about one
>written by someone who has no contract with him, and no comeback if it goes
>taters.
You make the contract. If you use open source, he'll come back to you, and you'll
be able to fix it, or find someone here who can. Python itself is written
"by someone who has no contract with him" (presumably). How do you square that?

How does he feel about installing via something you've made with Installshield
(commercial installer .exe packager)? He will certainly have no easy way to deal
with any problem with that other than call you, and you will have no easy way
to check on what happened, because you can't just look at the code, or ask someone
here who knows about the code, because it isn't openly available (AFAIK; for a price
most commercial things are possible).

uff.exe is (well, might be if I don't use up my time budget here ;-) just a tool either
just to install or to install and automatically execute something in a way you decided,
and having the possibility that automatically executing means getting some files in place
and maybe doing some preliminary things you don't really want embedded in your app just
because you have a "single-exe" requirement.

If it's open source and all available through python.org, where's the problem
with that? ISTM, he's better protected, and has all kinds of options.

Regards,
Bengt Richter




More information about the Python-list mailing list