Hi Chris, +1 to all three of these proposals!
Stephan 2017-11-13 19:57 GMT+01:00 Chris Barker <chris.bar...@noaa.gov>: > This has gotten to be a big thread, and it's a pretty intractable problem, > but I think there are a few fairly small things that could be done to at > least make it a bit easier: > > 1) Add python2.exe and python3.exe files to the Windows installers -- am I > insane or did Windows used to have that? I really think it did -- maybe got > removed when py.exe was added. > 1a) alternatively, we could add a "py" executable to the standard linux > builds, so there would be THAT one way to do it. But I think that's a "BAD > IDEA" -- the whole "py" thing is not widely know or used, it's not going to > show up in package install instructions for a LONG time, (actualy we could > do both anyway) > > Then "python2 -m pip install" would work everywhere (only with new > installations, but at least with newbies, that's a bit more likely ...) > > > 2) Make adding to the PATH in Windows the default. I think there are > really three user groups: > > - newbies starting from scratch -- they want it on the PATH > > - newbies with whatever left over cruft from previous installations on > their systems -- they want it at the FRONT of their PATH. They SHOULD > uninstall all the cruft, but if they don't this will still work with as few > surprises a possible. > > - not-newbies with a previous version of python they need to continue > using. They can uncheck the box, or use py.exe > > > 3) Make --user be be automatic for pip install. Not actually the default, > but pip could do a user install if you don't have the permissions for a > non-user install. > > This means folks might accidentally install in user mode because they > forgot to type sudo -- but that would be a mostly-sysadmin/sophisticated > user problem. And maybe have an environment variable of configuration key > for "prefer admin install". If tha was set, pip would only install in user > mode if specifically asked to. I'm can't imagine a case where a user would > have admin permissions, but want a user install (except people following > bad practices!) > > Except for the pip change, these would be easy to implement and backward > compatible. So why not? > > > *NOTE:* even if nothing changes with any of this we need to get py.exe > better documented and advertised -- it doesn't show up in: > > https://docs.python.org/3/faq/windows.html#id2 > > for instance. > > In fact, I knew about py.exe (from this discussion), and was writing up > notes about how to run a Python file (without access to a Windows box) , > and it took a LONG time to find ANY documentation of it (adding "py" to a > google search about something python does not get far...). > > We can do that better, but frankly this may be a lesson on why we can't > rely on anything "new" to help solve this problem, when maybe we could make > the "old way" work better and more cross platform. > > -Chris > > -- > > Christopher Barker, Ph.D. > Oceanographer > > Emergency Response Division > NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice > 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax > Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception > > chris.bar...@noaa.gov > > _______________________________________________ > Python-ideas mailing list > Python-ideas@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ > >
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/