On 20 May 2014 01:21, Donald Stufft wrote:
> On May 19, 2014, at 7:40 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>> On Windows, there is only "python", and PATH controls which version you get.
>> You use the "py" command line options to nominate a specific interpreter.
>
> I know Paul would be for it, but I have no
On 20 May 2014 02:26, Daniel Holth wrote:
> Then I vote for just another key that is a list of the
> previously-defined scripts that should also have Python version
> suffixes. Then pip's metadata would contain:
>
> py_versioned_scripts = [ 'pip' ]
>
> The installer would know to create additional
Then I vote for just another key that is a list of the
previously-defined scripts that should also have Python version
suffixes. Then pip's metadata would contain:
py_versioned_scripts = [ 'pip' ]
The installer would know to create additional names for the console
script called pip.
On Mon, May
On May 19, 2014, at 7:48 PM, Daniel Holth wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>> On 20 May 2014 01:38, "Donald Stufft" wrote:
>>>
>>> If we do standardize we should also likely standardize on how we handle
>>> alternative interpreters. Things like PyPy, Jython et
On May 19, 2014, at 7:40 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> On 20 May 2014 01:38, "Donald Stufft" wrote:
> >
> > If we do standardize we should also likely standardize on how we handle
> > alternative interpreters. Things like PyPy, Jython etc.
>
> The idea of a "py" launcher equivalent for POSIX sy
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> On 20 May 2014 01:38, "Donald Stufft" wrote:
>>
>> If we do standardize we should also likely standardize on how we handle
>> alternative interpreters. Things like PyPy, Jython etc.
>
> The idea of a "py" launcher equivalent for POSIX syste
On 20 May 2014 01:38, "Donald Stufft" wrote:
>
> If we do standardize we should also likely standardize on how we handle
> alternative interpreters. Things like PyPy, Jython etc.
The idea of a "py" launcher equivalent for POSIX systems likely has a place
in that discussion.
As far as the origina
On May 19, 2014, at 11:36 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On 19 May 2014 15:38, Daniel Holth wrote:
>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>>> On May 19, 2014, at 8:16 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> [...]
It may seem like an overkill, but wouldn't it be best to standardize:
On 19 May 2014 15:38, Daniel Holth wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>> On May 19, 2014, at 8:16 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
[...]
>>> It may seem like an overkill, but wouldn't it be best to standardize:
>>> - which version is preferred (with or without dash)
>>> - w
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
> On May 19, 2014, at 8:16 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> (I hope that this hasn't been discussed previously)
>> so I've been trying to find out whether there's an explicit recommendation
>> for creating and naming scripts/entry p
On May 19, 2014, at 8:16 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> Hi all,
> (I hope that this hasn't been discussed previously)
> so I've been trying to find out whether there's an explicit recommendation
> for creating and naming scripts/entry points depending on Python version that
> they're built with,
Hi all,
(I hope that this hasn't been discussed previously)
so I've been trying to find out whether there's an explicit recommendation for
creating and naming scripts/entry points depending on Python version that
they're built with, but I didn't find any. As an example, setuptools'
easy_install
12 matches
Mail list logo
