2009/3/25 Steve Holden <st...@holdenweb.com>: > As far as memory serves, Mike built the installers precisely by using > distutils to build Windows installers. He then had to suffer criticism > from people who suggested this was inappropriately complex for pure > Python modules. > > In so far as "end users" won't wish to install individual Python modules > this argument may have had some merit, but I personally thought the > criticism unjustified since Mike's technique gave a uniform install > procedure for everything.
I've lost the context for this discussion completely, but can I offer a couple of points from a Windows user's point of view: 1. Using distutils to build Windows installers for pure-python packages is, in my view, *entirely* appropriate. The uniform install procedure (and more importantly, uniform *un*install procedure) is a key benefit for me. I can (and do) build my own installers for pure-python modules which do not come with an installer (easy enough, precisely because it's pure Python) but I feel that it's considerate and helpful of distributors to offer bdist_wininst (or bdist_msi) installers even when all it saves is a bit of my time. 2. Setuptools messes this clean picture up, for reasons I cannot understand, but which annoy me intensely. When setuptools is involved, it changes the default bdist_wininst behaviour somehow, so that the installers become version-specific. This increases the burden on distributors, which as a result means that you are less likely to find bdist_wininst installers for setuptools-using pure python packages (yes, I know, they give you eggs, and easy_install, yadda yadda...) So where setuptools is involved, things do start to become "inappropriately complex" - but that is a setuptools problem, NOT an issue with providing installers. 3. Setuptools, unfortunately, has divided the Python distribution community quite badly. I'd be curious to know whether the "people who suggested this was inappropriately complex" you mention above were setuptools supporters. My (unfounded) suspicion is that the argument was "having to use a separate installer is more complex than just using easy_install" - which is a highly debatable (and frequently debated!) point of view. > I don't think anyone was suggesting that py2exe would be helpful for > writing installers--simply to reduce complexity from the user's point of > view and bundle dependencies in isolation from other applications. It > seems to do that quite well. py2exe is good at creating bundled applications with no external dependencies. It doesn't make installers for these apps, just a directory containing the exe and all supporting files. That's a completely different scenario, as you say. Paul. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
