[Distutils] Wheels and console script entry point wrappers (Was: Replacing pip.exe with a Python script)

[Jason R. Coombs]

There are two versions of launchers primarily because of my naiveté when
addressing the UAC issue. 64-bit launchers were exempt from the UAC
restrictions that caused them to launch in a separate window. I believed
this to be a proper fix, when in fact those still using 32-bit launchers
were still experiencing the problem. See
https://bitbucket.org/tarek/distribute/issue/143/easy_install-opens-new-cons
ole-cant-read for more detail.

 

So I agree, it would probably be sufficient to only supply 32-bit
executables. However, my preference would be to supply
architecture-appropriate executables rather than relying on a compatibility
layer.

 

Furthermore, I don’t believe the ARM architecture has a compatibility layer
(meaning 64-bit executables are required for 64-bit ARM builds), so
architecture and word size distinction is necessary.

 

I believe you’re right about leveraging the py launcher. I’d like for
setuptools to not have to supply launchers at all but depend on py launcher
instead. The py launcher is bundled with Python 3.3 so should become
ubiquitously available soon. I believe setuptools can begin to rely on it
and not supply a launcher at all. The scripts currently installed by
setuptools are suitable for launching by py launcher, so all that will need
to happen is to stop supplying its own launcher.

 

At least, that’s how I imagine it happening.

 

From: Paul Moore [mailto:p.f.moore at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, 16 July, 2013 09:32
To: Distutils; Jason R. Coombs
Subject: Re: Wheels and console script entry point wrappers (Was: Replacing
pip.exe with a Python script)

 

On 16 July 2013 14:08, Paul Moore <p.f.moore at gmail.com
<mailto:p.f.moore at gmail.com> > wrote:

PS There is still the proviso that I haven't tested my assumption that the
separate 32 and 64 bit wrappers are *needed* (setuptools and distlib use
them, so I think it's a valid assumption, but I need to test). I will try to
get time to check that ASAP.


Hmm. I just did a quick test, and then based on the results checked the
setuptools source code. I can see no reason why there needs to be 32 and 64
bit launcher exes. The launchers simply use CreateProcess to launch a
separate Python process using the #! line of the script. So there's no DLL
loading going on, and no reason that I can see for needing separate 32 and
64 bit builds.

 

Jason - can you shed any light on why there are separate builds for 32 and
64 bits?

 

Actually, the launcher is essentially identical to the "py" launcher for
Windows, except that it gets a script name to execute from the name of the
launcher. I'm wondering whether the correct approach here would be to
enhance the launcher one more time to look for a suitably named script and
auto-run it if it's present (i.e. merge the wrapper functionality into the
launcher). Then we have a standard wrapper that everyone can use and not
reinvent their own.

 

Paul

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20130716/d2647871/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6572 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/attachments/20130716/d2647871/attachment-0001.bin>