<html>

 <head>

  <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">

 </head>

 <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">

  On 3/16/2012 9:22 AM, Lindberg, Van wrote:

  <blockquote cite="mid:4F6368D9.5050200@gmail.com" type="cite">

   <pre wrap="">On 3/16/2012 10:53 AM, Paul Moore wrote:

</pre>

   <blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">

    <pre wrap=""><span class="moz-txt-citetags">&gt; </span>The only way I can read this to make sense is that you somehow

<span class="moz-txt-citetags">&gt; </span>consider the Python installation as part of your development

<span class="moz-txt-citetags">&gt; </span>environment (you mentioned source control earlier in the thread -

<span class="moz-txt-citetags">&gt; </span>surely you don't manage your Python installation in source control -

&gt; binaries, stdlib, etc?). I can't see why you would do this, and it

&gt; certainly doesn't seem like a reasonable thing to do to me.

<span class="moz-txt-citetags">&gt;</span>

&gt; Can you clarify?

</pre>

   </blockquote>

   <pre wrap="">I don't check in the python binary itself, nor the stdlib, but I <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>do<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> 

check in the whole "installation", including the binaries directory.

I like having my deploy environment exactly match my develop 

environment. </pre>

  </blockquote>

  <br>

  So I think I'm finally beginning to see the underlying reason why

  Van is desiring this consistency: It is not that he wants to check

  in his installation of Python, but that he wants to check in his

  installation of his packages and scripts into a source control

  environment, and then be able to check out that source control

  environment into an installation of Python on another machine of a

  different architecture. In an environment where a source control

  system is pervasive and well used, this would be an effective

  deployment alternative to developing a packaging/distribution

  solution using distutils, distutels2, packaging, easy_install, eggs,

  or peanuts, or any other such scheme.<br>

  <br>

  But!<br>

  <br>

  Source control environments don't lend themselves to being used for

  anything except exact replication of file and directory structure,

  so when the different architectures have different directory

  structures, this deployment technique cannot easily work.... except,

  as Van has discussed, by tweaking the development machine's

  environment to match that of the deployment machines... and that

  only works in the case where the deployment happens to only one

  architecture, and the development machine can be tweaked to match...

  but deploying to multiple machine having different architectures and

  directory structures would be impossible using the source control

  deployment technique, because of the different directory structures.<br>

  <br>

  If Van stated this goal in this thread, I missed it, and I think it

  is the missing link in the discussions. If I'm wrong, apologies for

  the noise.<br>

 </body>

</html>