<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Carl Meyer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:carl@oddbird.net">carl@oddbird.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">No disagreement here. I think virtualenv's sweet spot is as a convenient</div>
tool for development environments (used in virtualenvwrapper fashion,<br>
where the file structure of the virtualenv itself is hidden away and you<br>
never see it at all). I think it's fine to deploy _into_ a virtualenv,<br>
if you find that convenient too (though I think there are real<br>
advantages to deploying just a big ball of code with no need for<br>
installers). But I see little reason to make virtualenvs relocatable or<br>
sharable across platforms. I don't think virtualenvs as on on-disk file<br>
structure make a good distribution/deployment mechanism at all.<br>
<br>
IOW, I hijacked this thread (sorry) to respond to a specific denigration<br>
of the value of virtualenv that I disagree with. I don't care about<br>
making virtualenvs consistent across platforms.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Well, if you're the virtualenv maintainer (or at least the PEP author), and you're basically shooting down the principal rationale for reorganizing the Windows directory layout, then it's not really much of a hijack - it's pretty darn central to the thread!</div>
<div><br></div></div>