Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 397 - Last Comments
> It looks good to me! Also, I see no reason not to always use a 32bit > version of the launcher other than I'll change it, then - the strong reason *for* always using a 32-bit launcher is packaging, as the 32-bit installer would otherwise have to include both a 32-bit launcher and a 64-bit launcher, and install the right one depending on what the target system is. > Thanks to Martin for updating it - I agree it is vastly improved! Thanks! Martin ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 397 - Last Comments
Sorry, but I missed the announcement of an updated PEP. It looks good to me! Also, I see no reason not to always use a 32bit version of the launcher other than (a) the 64bit code already exists and works and (b) it might mean it is no longer possible to do a complete build of a 64bit Python without the 32bit compilers installed. But (b) is really only a theoretical problem so I think in practice it would be fine either way. Thanks to Martin for updating it - I agree it is vastly improved! Cheers, Mark On 19/06/2012 2:31 PM, Brian Curtin wrote: Martin approached me earlier and requested that I act as PEP czar for 397. I haven't been involved in the writing of the PEP and have been mostly observing from the outside, so I accepted and hope to get this wrapped up quickly and implemented in time for the beta. The PEP is pretty complete, but there are a few outstanding issues. On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Terry Reedy wrote: "Independent installations will always only overwrite newer versions of the launcher with older versions." 'always only' is a bit awkward and the sentence looks backwards to me. I would expect only overwriting older versions with newer versions. Agreed, I would expect the same. I would think taking out the word "only" and then flipping newer and older in the sentence would correct it. On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Terry Reedy wrote: These seem contradictory: "The 32-bit distribution of Python will not install a 32-bit version of the launcher on a 64-bit system." I presume this mean that it will install the 64-bit version and that there will always be only one version of the launcher on the system. "On 64bit Windows with both 32bit and 64bit implementations of the same (major.minor) Python version installed, the 64bit version will always be preferred. This will be true for both 32bit and 64bit implementations of the launcher - a 32bit launcher will prefer to execute a 64bit Python installation of the specified version if available." This implies to me that the 32bit installation *will* install a 32bit launcher and that there could be both versions of the launcher installed. I took that as covering an independently-installed launcher. You could always install your own 32-bit launcher, and it'd prefer to launch a binary matching the machine type. So yes, there could be multiple launchers installed for different machine types, and I'm not sure why we'd want to (or how we could) prevent people from installing them. You could have a 64-bit launcher available system-wide in your Windows folder, then you could have a 32-bit launcher running out of C:\Users\Terry for some purposes. Martin - is that correct? === Outside of Terry's concerns, I find the updated PEP almost ready to go as-is. Many of the updates were in line with what Martin and I briefly talked about at PyCon, and I believe some of them came out of previous PEP discussions on here, so I see nothing unexpected at this point. My only additional comment would be to have the "Configuration file" implementation details supplemented with a readable example of where the py.ini file should be placed. On my machine that is "C:\Users\brian\AppData\Local", rather than making people have to run that parameter through the listed function via pywin32. ___ 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/skippy.hammond%40gmail.com ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 397 - Last Comments
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:30 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: >> Agreed, I would expect the same. I would think taking out the word >> "only" and then flipping newer and older in the sentence would correct >> it. > > Will change. > >>> "On 64bit Windows with both 32bit and 64bit implementations of the same >>> (major.minor) Python version installed, the 64bit version will always be >>> preferred. This will be true for both 32bit and 64bit implementations of >>> the launcher - a 32bit launcher will prefer to execute a 64bit Python >>> installation of the specified version if available." >>> >>> This implies to me that the 32bit installation *will* install a 32bit >>> launcher and that there could be both versions of the launcher installed. > > No - this paragraph talks about the Python being launched, not the > bitness of the launcher. As (currently) the launcher creates a > subprocess always, this is quite feasible. > > The bitness of the launcher really doesn't matter, except that a 32-bit > launcher cannot access all directories, and a 64-bit launcher does not > work on a 32-bit system. > > Now that I think about it, it might be that it's best to always have the > launcher as a 32-bit binary. It could disable the filesystem and > registry redirection if it really wanted to, and would work on both > 32-bit and 64-bit systems. Always doing a 32-bit binary seems like a better move to me. >> I took that as covering an independently-installed launcher. >> >> You could always install your own 32-bit launcher, and it'd prefer to >> launch a binary matching the machine type. > > No, that's not the plan. The binary being launched is entirely > controlled by command line arguments, ini files, and shebang lines. > > I personally find it sad that it always creates a subprocess, and it > could avoid doing so if the launched Python has the same bitness, but > alas, the problems with doing so are mostly convincing. > >> So yes, there could be >> multiple launchers installed for different machine types, and I'm not >> sure why we'd want to (or how we could) prevent people from installing >> them. You could have a 64-bit launcher available system-wide in your >> Windows folder, then you could have a 32-bit launcher running out of >> C:\Users\Terry for some purposes. > > The PEP doesn't really consider launcher binaries not installed into > the standard location. It would work, but it's out of scope of the PEP. > > The PEP actually only talks about launcher binaries in c:\windows, and > essentially says that they must match the bitness of the system. True, got it. >> My only additional comment would be to have the "Configuration file" >> implementation details supplemented with a readable example of where >> the py.ini file should be placed. On my machine that is >> "C:\Users\brian\AppData\Local", rather than making people have to run >> that parameter through the listed function via pywin32. > > Will do. > > Martin ___ 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
Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 397 - Last Comments
> Agreed, I would expect the same. I would think taking out the word > "only" and then flipping newer and older in the sentence would correct > it. Will change. >> "On 64bit Windows with both 32bit and 64bit implementations of the same >> (major.minor) Python version installed, the 64bit version will always be >> preferred. This will be true for both 32bit and 64bit implementations of >> the launcher - a 32bit launcher will prefer to execute a 64bit Python >> installation of the specified version if available." >> >> This implies to me that the 32bit installation *will* install a 32bit >> launcher and that there could be both versions of the launcher installed. No - this paragraph talks about the Python being launched, not the bitness of the launcher. As (currently) the launcher creates a subprocess always, this is quite feasible. The bitness of the launcher really doesn't matter, except that a 32-bit launcher cannot access all directories, and a 64-bit launcher does not work on a 32-bit system. Now that I think about it, it might be that it's best to always have the launcher as a 32-bit binary. It could disable the filesystem and registry redirection if it really wanted to, and would work on both 32-bit and 64-bit systems. > I took that as covering an independently-installed launcher. > > You could always install your own 32-bit launcher, and it'd prefer to > launch a binary matching the machine type. No, that's not the plan. The binary being launched is entirely controlled by command line arguments, ini files, and shebang lines. I personally find it sad that it always creates a subprocess, and it could avoid doing so if the launched Python has the same bitness, but alas, the problems with doing so are mostly convincing. > So yes, there could be > multiple launchers installed for different machine types, and I'm not > sure why we'd want to (or how we could) prevent people from installing > them. You could have a 64-bit launcher available system-wide in your > Windows folder, then you could have a 32-bit launcher running out of > C:\Users\Terry for some purposes. The PEP doesn't really consider launcher binaries not installed into the standard location. It would work, but it's out of scope of the PEP. The PEP actually only talks about launcher binaries in c:\windows, and essentially says that they must match the bitness of the system. > My only additional comment would be to have the "Configuration file" > implementation details supplemented with a readable example of where > the py.ini file should be placed. On my machine that is > "C:\Users\brian\AppData\Local", rather than making people have to run > that parameter through the listed function via pywin32. Will do. Martin ___ 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
[Python-Dev] PEP 397 - Last Comments
Martin approached me earlier and requested that I act as PEP czar for 397. I haven't been involved in the writing of the PEP and have been mostly observing from the outside, so I accepted and hope to get this wrapped up quickly and implemented in time for the beta. The PEP is pretty complete, but there are a few outstanding issues. On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Terry Reedy wrote: > "Independent installations will always only overwrite newer versions of the > launcher with older versions." 'always only' is a bit awkward and the > sentence looks backwards to me. I would expect only overwriting older > versions with newer versions. Agreed, I would expect the same. I would think taking out the word "only" and then flipping newer and older in the sentence would correct it. On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Terry Reedy wrote: > These seem contradictory: > > "The 32-bit distribution of Python will not install a 32-bit version of the > launcher on a 64-bit system." > > I presume this mean that it will install the 64-bit version and that there > will always be only one version of the launcher on the system. > > "On 64bit Windows with both 32bit and 64bit implementations of the same > (major.minor) Python version installed, the 64bit version will always be > preferred. This will be true for both 32bit and 64bit implementations of > the launcher - a 32bit launcher will prefer to execute a 64bit Python > installation of the specified version if available." > > This implies to me that the 32bit installation *will* install a 32bit > launcher and that there could be both versions of the launcher installed. I took that as covering an independently-installed launcher. You could always install your own 32-bit launcher, and it'd prefer to launch a binary matching the machine type. So yes, there could be multiple launchers installed for different machine types, and I'm not sure why we'd want to (or how we could) prevent people from installing them. You could have a 64-bit launcher available system-wide in your Windows folder, then you could have a 32-bit launcher running out of C:\Users\Terry for some purposes. Martin - is that correct? === Outside of Terry's concerns, I find the updated PEP almost ready to go as-is. Many of the updates were in line with what Martin and I briefly talked about at PyCon, and I believe some of them came out of previous PEP discussions on here, so I see nothing unexpected at this point. My only additional comment would be to have the "Configuration file" implementation details supplemented with a readable example of where the py.ini file should be placed. On my machine that is "C:\Users\brian\AppData\Local", rather than making people have to run that parameter through the listed function via pywin32. ___ 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
