[Pythonmac-SIG] [Pyobjc-dev] Py2app too complex?

Ronald Oussoren ronaldoussoren at mac.com
Tue Aug 3 09:53:09 CEST 2010


On 1 Aug, 2010, at 19:29, Christopher Barker wrote:

> Greg Ewing wrote:
>> I've been thinking for a while about creating something
>> simpler that doesn't attempt any automatic module discovery
>> at all. You would be required to construct a project file
>> that explicitly lists all the required modules and libraries,
>> including standard library modules.
> 
> I've thought for a while that there is way too much re-invention of the 
> wheel with the various stand-alone builders. I'd love to see more 
> flexibility, and ideally code sharing, by breaking down the process into 
> the various parts:

> 1) the API for specifying what you need built -- py2app and py2exe at 
> least share much )but not all) of this, though they are slightly 
> incompatible. AFAIK, the rest are all different

AFAIK Bob intented py2app to be compatible with py2exe when specifying what to build. That won't always work though due to differences between the two platforms.

It might be useful to think about a cleaner way to specify what to build, I don't particularly like the current way and especially not when building more complex applications.

> 
> 2) Figuring out what needs to be included. py2app and bbfreeze both use 
> modulegraph, though bb-freeze apparently forked it.

Correct. I don't know what py2exe uses, it might use the stdlib modulefinder.

> 
> 3) Actually building the bundle -- by definition this will be different 
> on different platforms, and there are multiple ways of doing it on one 
> platform
> 
> Anyway, ideally, each of these steps could share a common API, and so 
> each bundle builder could mix and match the parts as they saw fit.
> 
> Getting everyone to cooperate is a big social, rather then technical 
> problem, but py2app at least could be designed to allow each of these 
> pieces to be replaceable. (maybe it already is -- I haven't poked into 
> the code enough to know)
> 
> So, aside from allowing more code sharing, this approach would make it 
> easier to plug in different pieces, like Greg's proposed manual 
> specification of modules.

I totally agree that is would be better to try to get the various stand-alone builders to at least share code for the common functionality. A common API for the various components would help with that, but it would IMHO be better to actually merge the various components.

Ronald
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3567 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/pythonmac-sig/attachments/20100803/bec6c12d/attachment-0001.bin>


More information about the Pythonmac-SIG mailing list