On Oct 13, 9:37 am, Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> wrote: > Buck wrote: > >I'd like to get to zero-installation if possible. It's easy with > >simple python scripts, why not packages too? I know the technical > >reasons, but I haven't heard any practical reasons. > > I don't think we mean the same thing by "zero-installation"... seems to > me that if you have to copy it, check it out, or anything to get the > code from point A to point 'usable on your computer', then you have done > some sort of installation.
I think most people would agree that installation is whatever you need to do between downloading the software and being able to use it. For GNU packages, it's './configure && make && make install'. For Python packages, it's usually './setup.py install'. > > Steven had the nicest workaround (with the location = __import__ > > ('__main__').__file__ trick), but none of them solve the problem of > > the OP: organization of runnable scripts. So far it's been required to > > place all runnable scripts directly above any used packages. The > > workaround that Gabriel has been touting requires this too. > > Wha? "Place all runnable scripts directly above any used packages?" I > must have missed something major in this thread. The only thing > necessary is to have the package being imported to be somewhere in > PYTHONPATH. The only way to get your packages on the PYTHONPATH currently is to: * install the packages to site-packages (I don't have access) * edit the PYTHONPATH all users' environment (again, no access) * create some boilerplate that edits sys.path at runtime (various problems in previous post) * put your scripts directly above the package (this seems best so far, but forces a flat hierarchy of scripts) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list