On 5/29/2015 3:28 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
On 29 May 2015 at 23:15, Glenn Linderman wrote:
I don't presently see any C:\Python34\DLLs or C:\Python34 on my path, but I
didn't ask the installer to put it there either. So I'm guessing your option
1 assumes asking the Python installer to put it there?
Paul Moore wrote:
> One mildly annoying thing is that python3.dll is only installed in install dir>\DLLs, which
> typically isn't on PATH. So actually using the limited API from your own
> application fails by default.
> Fixing that's mostly a user admin issue, though (and you can just link to th
On 29 May 2015 at 23:15, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> I don't presently see any C:\Python34\DLLs or C:\Python34 on my path, but I
> didn't ask the installer to put it there either. So I'm guessing your option
> 1 assumes asking the Python installer to put it there? Not "automatically"
> but "on reques
On 5/29/2015 2:45 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
On 29 May 2015 at 21:49, Glenn Linderman wrote:
That looks interesting, I wonder what compilation environment it would need?
I don't think I've even installed a C compiler on my last couple boxes, and
the only version of a C compiler I have is, umm... M$V
I did that once; it wasn't worth it. It was no smaller than what
PyInstaller would output and required manually adding in the required
modules that weren't in the stdlib, along with any extra DLLs (e.g. the Qt
DLLs).
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On 29 May 2015 at 21:49,
On 29 May 2015 at 21:49, Glenn Linderman wrote:
>
> That looks interesting, I wonder what compilation environment it would need?
> I don't think I've even installed a C compiler on my last couple boxes, and
> the only version of a C compiler I have is, umm... M$VC++6.0, since I've
> moved to using
On 5/29/2015 3:33 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
On 28 May 2015 at 22:09, Glenn Linderman wrote:
This would be something I could use and benefit from immediately upon it
being available, so I laud your idea, and hope you have a successful
implementation, and look forward to using it. It would largely r
On 5/28/2015 4:29 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
On 28 May 2015 at 20:47, Brett Cannon wrote:
I think it's to have a single tool to do it for any platform, not to have
the technical nuts and bolts be the same necessarily. I think it's also to
figure out if there is anything the interpreter and/or stdlib
Hello,
On Fri, 29 May 2015 08:35:44 -0400
Donald Stufft wrote:
[]
> Another example is one that I personally worked on recently, where
> the company I worked for wanted to distribute a CLI to our customers
> which would "just work" that they could use to interact with the
[]
> particular piece
On Fri, 29 May 2015 18:36:02 +1000
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> The point is, in the Linux circles I move in, this idea of single file
> installation would be about as popular as a police raid at a rave club.
This is frankly not true. There are many programs (e.g. games) which are
not available
On May 29, 2015 at 4:37:37 AM, Steven D'Aprano (st...@pearwood.info) wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 01:20:06PM -0400, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
> > I think it’s an issue for all platforms, even when there is a system Python
> > that can be used.
> >
> > Here’s why:
> >
> > * Even on Linux system
Hello,
On Fri, 29 May 2015 20:53:53 +1000
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
[ insightful statistics skipped ]
> I think there are some exciting and interesting languages coming up:
> Swift, Julia, Go, Rust and others.
Only those? Every one in a dozen university student comes up with an
exciting, intere
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 07:08:43AM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 29 May 2015 05:25, "Chris Barker" wrote:
> >
> > OK, I'm really confused here:
> >
> > 1) what the heck is so special about go all of a sudden? People have been
> > writing and deploying single file executables built with C and ++,
Paul Moore writes:
> In my environments, we frequently have ancient versions of RHEL
> installed, sometimes with no Python at all (IIRC) or nothing better
> than 2.4.
That's pretty advanced as older Red Hat systems go. You're lucky it
isn't 1.5.2!
Getting serious, Red Hat systems have includ
On 28 May 2015 at 22:09, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> This would be something I could use and benefit from immediately upon it
> being available, so I laud your idea, and hope you have a successful
> implementation, and look forward to using it. It would largely replace the
> need for the py.exe laun
On 29 May 2015 at 09:36, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> The point is, in the Linux circles I move in, this idea of single file
> installation would be about as popular as a police raid at a rave club.
> Maybe you move in different circles (perhaps more enterprisey?), but I
> can already imagine the sort
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 01:20:06PM -0400, Donald Stufft wrote:
> I think it’s an issue for all platforms, even when there is a system Python
> that can be used.
>
> Here’s why:
>
> * Even on Linux systems Python isn’t always a guaranteed thing to be
> installed,
> for instance Debian works ju
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 05:38:49PM +0100, Paul Moore wrote:
> I suspect "single file executables" just aren't viewed as a desirable
> solution on Unix.
More of an anti-pattern than a pattern. A single file executable means
that when you have a security update, instead of patching one library,
Getting lost as to what thread this belongs in...
But another tack to take toward a single executable is Cython's embedding
option:
https://github.com/cython/cython/wiki/EmbeddingCython
This is a quick and dirty way to create a C executable that will then run
the cythonized code, all linked to t
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Ryan Gonzalez wrote:
> py2exe tends to invoke DLL hell if you have various versions of VS or
> Office or both installed. Because Windows.
>
uh, yes -- Windows applications invoke dll hell..nothign to be done
about that!
-Chris
>
> On May 28, 2015 11:23:57
On 5/28/2015 12:26 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
On 28 May 2015 at 19:22, Chris Angelico wrote:
Unfortunately (and believe me, I've been down this road many times) on
Windows *only* the exe format is a "first-class" executable.
Executable scripts and shebangs are very useful, but there are always
corne
On 29 May 2015 05:25, "Chris Barker" wrote:
>
> OK, I'm really confused here:
>
> 1) what the heck is so special about go all of a sudden? People have been
writing and deploying single file executables built with C and ++, and
whatever else? forever. (and indeed, it was a big sticking point for me
On 28 May 2015 at 20:47, Brett Cannon wrote:
> I think it's to have a single tool to do it for any platform, not to have
> the technical nuts and bolts be the same necessarily. I think it's also to
> figure out if there is anything the interpreter and/or stdlib can do to
> facilitate this.
Precis
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 3:25 PM Chris Barker wrote:
> OK, I'm really confused here:
>
> 1) what the heck is so special about go all of a sudden? People have been
> writing and deploying single file executables built with C and ++, and
> whatever else? forever. (and indeed, it was a big sticking p
On 28 May 2015 at 19:22, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> Unfortunately (and believe me, I've been down this road many times) on
>> Windows *only* the exe format is a "first-class" executable.
>> Executable scripts and shebangs are very useful, but there are always
>> corner cases where they don't work *q
OK, I'm really confused here:
1) what the heck is so special about go all of a sudden? People have been
writing and deploying single file executables built with C and ++, and
whatever else? forever. (and indeed, it was a big sticking point for me
when I introduced python in my organization)
2) Wh
On 5/28/2015 12:44 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
I do think single-file executables are an important piece to Python's
long-term competitiveness.
I completely agree. I talk to a lot of people about packaging of things, and
while
I think there are some serious problems with huge parts of Go’s pack
On May 28, 2015 at 2:33:25 PM, Carl Meyer (c...@oddbird.net) wrote:
> On 05/28/2015 11:52 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> [snip]
> > Nevertheless, I would like to understand how Unix can manage to have a
> > Python 3.4.3 binary at 4kb. Does that *really* have no external
> > dependencies (other than the
On 05/28/2015 11:52 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
[snip]
> Nevertheless, I would like to understand how Unix can manage to have a
> Python 3.4.3 binary at 4kb. Does that *really* have no external
> dependencies (other than the C library)? Are we really comparing like
> with like here?
I don't know what Do
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 3:52 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On 28 May 2015 at 18:15, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> Unix-like systems have this courtesy of the shebang, so as long as
>> there's some sort of Python installed, people don't need to know or
>> care that /usr/local/bin/mailmail is implemented in P
You might want to have a look at eGenix PyRun, which gives you
an almost complete Python runtime in 4-13MB (depending on what
startup performance needs you have):
http://www.egenix.com/products/python/PyRun/
On 28.05.2015 17:58, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On May 28, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Donald Stufft wr
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On 28 May 2015 at 16:58, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> > On May 28, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
> >
> >>You don’t need a "fully functioning Python" for a single file binary, you
> >>only need enough to actually run your application. For e
On 28 May 2015 at 18:04, Brian Curtin wrote:
> Donald mentioned one earlier: command line utilities. I want a single
> CLI I can deploy to my customers that doesn't make them have to
> install Python or even know it's Python at all.
Yep, that's the killer for me as well.
I know it's unrealistic
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 3:20 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
> On May 28, 2015 at 12:54:34 PM, Chris Angelico (ros...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> Is this a Windows-specific issue, or is it also intended for Linux and
>> Mac OS, where there'll already be a system Python (so a
>> single-file-executable would be u
py2exe tends to invoke DLL hell if you have various versions of VS or Office or
both installed. Because Windows.
On May 28, 2015 11:23:57 AM CDT, Chris Barker wrote:
>I'm confused:
>
>Doesn't py2exe (optionally) create a single file executable?
>
>And py2app on the Mac creates an application bu
I agree that size is an issue, but is it really that bad? Just compare it to
the recent "web surge" where everyone is writing desktop apps in HTML5+CSS+JS
and bundling a huge WebKit engine in their apps binary.
Python on Windows is seriously in a bad state. IMO, what needs to be
prioritized is
On May 28, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>Pex would be improved by having native support for importing .so’s from within
>a zipfile via zipimport. It would also be improved by having good, built in
>support for extraneous resources in the stdlib too.
Completely agree on both points. Ha
On May 28, 2015 at 12:54:34 PM, Chris Angelico (ros...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 2:28 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
> > oops, sorry -- I see this was addressed in another thread. Though I guess I
> > still don't see why "single file" is critical, over "single thing to
> > install" --
On May 28, 2015, at 09:23 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
>Barry Warsaw wrote:
>>I do think single-file executables are an important piece to Python's
>>long-term competitiveness.
>
>Really? It seems to me that desktop development is dying. What are the
>critical use-cases for a single file executable?
>
Donald Stufft wrote:
> On May 28, 2015 at 11:30:37 AM, Steve Dower (steve.do...@microsoft.com) wrote:
>> Donald Stufft wrote:
>> > Well Python 3.4.3 binary is 4kb for me, so you'd have that + your
>> > 1KB Python script + whatever
>> other pieces you need.
>>
>> For contrast, here are the things yo
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 3:04 AM, Brian Curtin wrote:
> Donald mentioned one earlier: command line utilities. I want a single
> CLI I can deploy to my customers that doesn't make them have to
> install Python or even know it's Python at all. My users write code in
> all types of languages on all OS
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
> I'm confused:
>
> Doesn't py2exe (optionally) create a single file executable?
>
> And py2app on the Mac creates an application bundle, but that is
> more-or-less the equivalent on OS-X (you may not even be able to have a
> single file execut
Donald Stufft wrote:
> Well Python 3.4.3 binary is 4kb for me, so you'd have that + your 1KB Python
> script + whatever other pieces you need.
For contrast, here are the things you need on Windows to be able to get to an
interactive prompt (I don't know how other platforms get this down to 4KB..
On May 28, 2015 at 12:24:42 PM, Chris Barker (chris.bar...@noaa.gov) wrote:
> I'm confused:
>
> Doesn't py2exe (optionally) create a single file executable?
>
> And py2app on the Mac creates an application bundle, but that is
> more-or-less the equivalent on OS-X (you may not even be able to
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 2:28 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
> oops, sorry -- I see this was addressed in another thread. Though I guess I
> still don't see why "single file" is critical, over "single thing to
> install" -- like a OS-X app bundle that can just be dragged into the
> Applications folder.
T
I'm confused:
Doesn't py2exe (optionally) create a single file executable?
And py2app on the Mac creates an application bundle, but that is
more-or-less the equivalent on OS-X (you may not even be able to have a
single file executable that can access the Window Manager, for instance)
Depending o
On May 28, 2015 at 12:01:22 PM, Barry Warsaw (ba...@python.org) wrote:
> On May 28, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
> >You don’t need a "fully functioning Python" for a single file binary, you
> >only need enough to actually run your application. For example, if you're
> >making an ap
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 1:28 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Chris Barker
> wrote:
>
>> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> >> I do think single-file executables are an important piece to Python's
>> >> long-term
>> competitiveness.
>>
>> Really? It seems to me that desktop develo
On 28 May 2015 at 17:28, Chris Barker wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
>>
>> Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> >> I do think single-file executables are an important piece to Python's
>> >> long-term competitiveness.
>>
>> Really? It seems to me that desktop development is dying
On 28 May 2015 at 16:58, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On May 28, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
>>You don’t need a "fully functioning Python" for a single file binary, you
>>only need enough to actually run your application. For example, if you're
>>making an application that can download file
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
> Barry Warsaw wrote:
> >> I do think single-file executables are an important piece to Python's
> >> long-term
> competitiveness.
>
> Really? It seems to me that desktop development is dying. What are the
> critical use-cases for a single fil
On May 28, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Donald Stufft wrote:
>You don’t need a "fully functioning Python" for a single file binary, you
>only need enough to actually run your application. For example, if you're
>making an application that can download files over HTTP, you don't need to
>include parts of the
On May 28, 2015 at 11:30:37 AM, Steve Dower (steve.do...@microsoft.com) wrote:
> Donald Stufft wrote:
> > Well Python 3.4.3 binary is 4kb for me, so you'd have that + your 1KB
> > Python script + whatever
> other pieces you need.
>
> For contrast, here are the things you need on Windows to b
53 matches
Mail list logo