Squisher -- a lightweight, self-contained alternative to eggs?

Bruno Desthuilliers bdesth.quelquechose at free.quelquepart.fr
Tue Mar 6 00:35:02 CET 2007


Stef Mientki a écrit :
> Adam Atlas wrote:
> 
>> Ah... heh, sorry, I misread your message as "a much more convenient
>> way" rather than "much more than a convenient way". Anyway, I
>> understand that, and I do indeed find setuptools useful and use it on
>> a regular basis.
>>
>> But my other points still stand. This would be a moot point if
>> setuptools were part of the standard library, but it's not, and I
>> don't see why people should have to bother installing it if they
>> simply want to try a small package. Look at Beautiful Soup, for
>> example. It's distributed as a single .py file, and that's great. With
>> most modules, all I want to do is download them and plop them into my
>> project directory. You can always copy it into site-packages if you
>> want to access it globally, and you can always unzip it if you need to
>> see the source.
>>
>> So I *will* retract my statement that this could be an "alternative"
>> to eggs -- ideally, it would be an addition, since it doesn't break
>> compatibility at all. You could download an egg and rename it to .pyc,
>> and import it like any other module, and at any point later, you could
>> rename it back to .egg and use setuptools to install it if you wish.
>>
> Good point to make these things much easier!
> 
> But possibly I'm the only Windows user here,

I don't think so.

> as I still find these talks all very difficult to understand,
> and I really don't understand why all this complexity is necessary,
> setuptools ? eggs ? zips ? pythonpaths ?
> 
> As a normal Windows user,
>   I'm used to run an install file,
>     and hit just 1 button.

As a normal *n*x user, I'm used to run a single command line. Don't even 
have to hit a button !-)

> But I guess the needed complexity is all thanks to NIX ;-)

FUD.



More information about the Python-list mailing list