On 2017-06-16 15:53, Ben Finney wrote: > > I must admit my initial preference would be the differently named > > wrapper. Surely users of the codebase will be invoking stuff via > > something opaque which sources the requisite things? > > That “something opaque” is the ‘$VENV/bin/activate’ script; many > people who join the team will already know that, and I'm trying to > make use of that existing convention. > > > Actually, on trying to write something simple and flexible, since > > once made the venv is basicly state WRT the activate script, I'm > > leaning towards hacking the activate script, probably by keeping > > a distinct file off the the side and modifying activate to source > > it. > > Yeah, I'd much prefer to be told there's a hook to use, so that > someone who creates a standard Python virtualenv the conventional > way will not need to then hack that virtualenv.
At least within virtualenvwrapper (I'm not sure whether they come with virtualenv proper), in my $WORKON_HOME and $WORKON_HOME/$VIRTUALENV/bin directories, I have a bunch of pre* and post* templates including preactivate and postactivate hooks in which I can put various bash scripting. I've only used them once or twice and don't have an example readily at hand, but it seems would give you what you're looking for. -tkc -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
