2009/5/7 Doug Hellmann <doug.hellm...@gmail.com>: > I would argue the other way. Why force authors of console scripts to deal > with entry points instead of just installing the script as-is?
Please explain "as-is" with reference to ensuring that the script works cross-platform. I think the benefit of entry points for scripts is that it generates appropriate wrappers to allow use on all platforms. Having said that, I find setuptools entry points to be over-engineered, and the Windows wrappers (in particular, the fact that they are not version-independent) to be somewhat clumsy. But as a concept, I like the idea of having a way of specifying that a script is intended as an "executable", and having distutils do the job of generating whatever platform cruft is required [1] to make that work. Of course, for even remotely modern Python versions, I'd argue strongly that packages shouldn't be including console scripts, but should rather be supplying modules that can be run as scripts, via the -m argument to python. Users can then build aliases, shell scripts, or whatever is appropriate based on that. Paul. [1] And note especially that .bat files are *not* suitable wrappers on Windows, in spite of the fact that they are commonly used. Their biggest disadvantage is that they don't nest. _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig