[Python-Dev] draft PEP: virtual environments

[Carl Meyer]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/30/2011 06:28 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 12:10:18 +0000 (UTC)
> Vinay Sajip <vinay_sajip at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> We already have Unix shell scripts and BAT files in the source tree. Is
>>> it really complicated to maintain these additional shell scripts? Is
>>> there a lot of code in them?
>>
>> No, they're pretty small: wc -l gives
>>
>> 76 posix/activate (Bash script, contains deactivate() function)
>> 31 nt/activate.bat
>> 17 nt/deactivate.bat
>>
>> The question is whether we should stop at that, or whether there should be
>> support for tcsh, fish etc. such as virtualenv provides.
> 
> I don't think we need additional support for more or less obscure
> shells.
> Also, if posix/activate is sufficiently well written (don't ask me
> how :-)), it should presumably be compatible with all Unix shells?

I have no problem including the basic posix/nt activate scripts if no
one else is concerned about the added maintenance burden there.

I'm not sure that my cross-shell-scripting fu is sufficient to write
posix/activate in a cross-shell-compatible way; I use bash and am not
very familiar with other shells. If it runs under /bin/sh is that
sufficient to make it compatible with "all Unix shells" (for some
definition of "all")? If so, I can work on this.

Carl
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk6uw80ACgkQ8W4rlRKtE2e0AACcCGqxp/HWxX0UAqtS9W5y+UDr
weAAnjF4YdsCUvb4bXFloEGt1b7KlvWB
=2bd+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----