[Python-Dev] Request for Pronouncement: PEP 441 (original) (raw)

[Python-Dev] Request for Pronouncement: PEP 441 - Improving Python ZIP Application Support

Paul Moore p.f.moore at gmail.com
Wed Feb 25 18:06:07 CET 2015

On 25 February 2015 at 16:02, Jim J. Jewett <jimjjewett at gmail.com> wrote:

On 24 February 2015 at 18:58, Guido van Rossum wrote:

The naming of the functions feels inconsistent -- maybe pack(directory, target) -> createarchive(directory, archive), and setinterpreter() -> copyarchive(archive, newarchive)?

Paul Moore wrote: One possible source of confusion with copyarchive (and its command line equivalent "python -m zipapp old.pyz -o new.pyz") is that it isn't technically a copy, as it changes the shebang line (if you omit the interpreter argument it removes the existing shebang). Is the difference between create and copy important? e.g., is there anything wrong with createarchive(oldarchive, output=newarchive) working as well as createarchive(directory, archive)?

Probably not, now. The semantics have converged enough that this might be reasonable. It's how the command line interface works, after all. It would mean that the behaviour would be different depending on the value of the source argument (supplying the main argument and omitting the target are only valid for create), but again that's how the command line works.

I'll have a go at implementing this change this evening and see how it plays out.

Paul

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list