[Python-Dev] PEP 441 - Improving Python ZIP Application Support (original) (raw)

Daniel Holth dholth at gmail.com
Sun Feb 15 18:46:11 CET 2015

Go ahead, make my pep.

I will appreciate seeing it happen. On Feb 15, 2015 8:47 AM, "Nick Coghlan" <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:

On 15 February 2015 at 23:21, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com> wrote: > On 15 February 2015 at 08:59, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote: >> The other option would to cut PEP 441 way back to just be about >> standardising and registering the file associations, and recommending >> the use of pip to obtain the build machinery with (whether pyzaa, >> pyzzer or Twitter's more comprehensive pex). It would be a short PEP, >> but potentially still worth it for the improved visibility of the >> decision when folks are trying to figure out what "pyz" and "pyzw" >> files are later. > > Ok, thinking about this a little more. > > Getting the extension support is the key thing on Windows - at the > moment, people are faced with adding their own file associations or > putting binary data in a .py file, neither of which is a nice choice. > Tooling is important, though - sure, you can zip the data up and put a > header on, but it's fiddly. > > Which brings us full circle. A simple module, executable as "python -m > zipapp" (see below re name) which exports a single function, pack() > that creates the archive. If we want to provide a script to wrap the > module, like pyvenv.py does for venv, I've no objection to that - > presumably it would go in Tools/Scripts? If people (like me) want to > experiment with a more programmatic API for building pyz files, they > can do so on PyPI, and if such a thing becomes sufficiently mature we > can look then at proposing it for inclusion in the stdlib, as an > extension to the zipapp module. > > Regarding naming, I'm happy to go with zipapp if it's your preference. > Presumably the wrapper in Tools/Scripts would be pyzipapp.py?

Or we just skip the wrapper and make "python -m zipapp" the recommended invocation style. Adding a wrapper later is fairly easy, but removing it would be difficult. > > So the usage would be something like > > python -m zipapp [options] dirtozip > > Options: > -p The interpreter to use on the shebang line > (defaulting to /usr/bin/env python) > -o archivename The name of the output file (defaulting to the > source directory name with a .pyz extension) > If the argument has no extension, add '.pyz' > -m module:function The entry point to call (written to main.py) > Using this is an error if there is a > main.py, and mandatory if there isn't > > If you want anything more complex, it's easy enough to write your own > script based on zipfile, or use one of the modules on PyPI. > > Does this sound reasonable? If it's OK, I'll go ahead and prepare an > update to the PEP and an implementation. (Steve, looks like I may be > learning how to maintain the wix files after all - wish me luck :-)) > If I hear no objections in the next couple of days, I'll assume > everyone's OK with it and I'll prepare a PEP update and a patch. Sounds good to me. Daniel, do you mind if Paul becomes a co-author on PEP 441 and updates it as described? It seems a bit tidier than allocating a new PEP number and rejecting PEP 441, when the revised proposal is essentially just a simplified and renamed version of your original idea. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20150215/4d5e70fb/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list