[Distutils] Draft of new setuptools installation instructions

[Jorge Vargas]

On 10/3/06, Phillip J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
> At 10:43 PM 10/3/2006 +0100, Paul Moore wrote:
> >On 10/3/06, Phillip J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
> >>Should we make more effort to create a usable command-line experience on
> >>Windows?  Perhaps use a post-install script to register easy_install so it
> >>works from "Start/Run", with an automatic pause to prevent the opened
> >>console window from closing when it finishes running?  Should we include
> >>optional registration for the ``.egg`` extension so downloading or
> >>double-clicking an egg installs it?
> >
> >IMHO, no. Your particular suggestions would annoy me immensely,
>
> Are you sure?  Two points here, that I think you're not noticing:
>
> 1. Registering an "App Paths" entry for easy_install would simply make it
> *possible* to type "easy_install" in the Start/Run box and have it
> work.  It wouldn't force you to use it, and seems quite unlikely to
> conflict with anything else.  (It could also be made optional, as per point
> #2.)
>
I'll like that, on windows normally I open cmd then run easy_install,
very annoying. if I undestand it correctly will be the same that
python.exe does.

> 2. I said *optional* registration of the ``.egg`` extension; the idea would
> be that you'd have a dialog come up at the end of the .win32.exe run, to
> ask you if you wanted to add it.
>
> So, unless you're saying that having the *options* to do these things would
> annoy you, I don't understand your statement.
>
+1
>
> >>* The new install procedure bypasses firewall issues for installing
> >>setuptools itself, but doesn't do anything about the issue for packages
> >>that have dependencies.  Is there anything else that can be done about that?

great feature thanks.

> >
> >I've not worked with enough such packages to know the answer to this
> >without asking, but is there an incantation which says "check
> >dependencies, if all are present install, otherwise list the missing
> >dependencies and stop". If that's available, users can manually
> >download what they need. That is minimal, but effective - in my view,
> >simplicity is a virtue here.
>
that sounds like Red Hat dependency hell to me.

> Well, keep in mind that such a thing would only work for *one* level of
> dependencies; if your dependencies have dependencies you'll go through that
> repeatedly.
>
> But I could perhaps add a --no-deps option to "install" that would do the
> trick.  easy_install already has a --no-deps option, but it currently
> doesn't *display* the dependency list; it probably should.  It also doesn't
> stop the installation process.
>
> One minor issue: dependency checking currently takes place *after* the
> primary egg is installed, and changing that is too big a refactoring to
> happen in the remaining time until the 0.6 release.  But it's definitely
> something to think about for 0.7.
>
I don't see why that's a problem you should install setuptools then
get the deps of all the other packages, that's why everything depends
on setuptools in a implicit way.
> _______________________________________________
> Distutils-SIG maillist  -  Distutils-SIG at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
>