[Python-Dev] Distutils2 scripts (original) (raw)

Ron Adam rrr at ronadam.com
Thu Oct 21 03:01:56 CEST 2010

On 10/12/2010 09:59 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:

On Oct 12, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Greg Ewing wrote:

Giampaolo Rodolà wrote:

If that's the case what would I type in the command prompt in order to install a module? "C:\PythonXX\pysetup.exe"? If so I would strongly miss old "setup.py install". Another thing bothers me about this. With the current scheme, if you have multiple Pythons available, it's easy to be sure that you're installing into the right one, because it's the one that you use to run setup.py. Whereas if installation is performed by a different executable, there's a possibility of them being out of sync. So I think I'd prefer some scheme involving 'python -m ...' or some other option to Python itself, rather than a separate executable. This is why I suggested that 'setup.sh' (or whatever) take a --python-version option to select the python executable to use. Whatever solution is implemented definitely needs to take the multiple-installed pythons into account.

On Ubuntu, I use python, python2.7, python3.1, python3.2 and that is what I type to use that particular version. The -m option seems to me to be the easiest to do and works with all of these.

 python2.7 -m setup
 python3.2 -m setup

I don't see why that isn't an acceptable solution to this?

It's not any different than doing ...

 python3.2 -m test.regrtest
 python3.2 -m pydoc -g
 python3.2 -m idlelib.idle
 python3.2 -m this
 python3.2 -m turtle
 python3.2 -m timeit -h
 python3.2 -m trace --help
 python3.2 -m dis filename.py
 python3.2 -m zipfile

There are probably others I don't remember or know about.

The point is, without the handy '-m', you have to know where the file is, or set environment variables, or create .bat and/or .sh files, and those takes a lot more work. So why not just embrace it and move on?

Ron

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list