Message153772
| Author |
vinay.sajip |
| Recipients |
alexis, brian.curtin, eric.araujo, lygstate, paul.moore, tarek, tim.golden, vinay.sajip |
| Date |
2012年02月20日.10:06:32 |
| SpamBayes Score |
1.9151347e-14 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1329732393.22.0.508245759501.issue14027@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
> I don’t understand the notions of standard vs. custom.
> Does standard mean setuptools? #12394 is not quite ready yet, so
> nothing is set in stone, but if possible I’d prefer to generate
> pysetup.exe. Let’s move the sub-discussion there.
Okay, we'll continue on #12394, but I'll comment here on "standard vs. custom" - by "standard", I meant the setuptools way of doing it, but not necessarily using the setuptools code - see my comment in #12394 on an alternative. The basic method is that used by setuptools, but the specific implementation is different - somescript.exe opens somescript-script.py, reads a shebang line to find which Python to invoke, then invokes it with the script. By "custom" I meant "something else" without anything specific in mind - and I'm not sure it's worth the bother and extra work of a customised pysetup.exe.
Perhaps all or at least some of this could be simplified in 3.3 if the PEP 397 launcher is included in Python. Mark Hammond has re-started discussions about this on Python-dev, and hopefully we'll have a consensus to get it in. |
|