Eggs, VirtualEnv, and Apt - best practices?
Nick Craig-Wood
nick at craig-wood.com
Thu Sep 25 16:30:03 EDT 2008
Scott Sharkey <ssharkey at linuxunlimited.com> wrote:
B> Our development group at work seems to be heading towards adopting
> python as one of our standard "systems languages" for internal
> application development (yeah!). One of the issues that's come up is
> the problem with apt (deb packages) vs eggs, vs virtual environments.
> We're probably gonna end up using Pylons or TurboGears for web-based
> apps, and I've recommended virtualenv, but one of the other developers
> has had some "inconsistencies" when mixing systems with python installed
> from apt (all our servers are debian or ubuntu based) vs when installed
> under virtualenv.
>
> I have basically recommended that we only install the python base (core
> language) from apt, and that everything else should be installed into
> virtual environments. But I wanted to check to see how other enterprises
> are handling this issue? Are you building python from scratch, or using
> specific sets of .deb packages, or some other process.
>
> Any insight into the best way to have a consistent, repeatable,
> controllable development and production environment would be much
> appreciated.
I'll admit to not knowing what you mean by virtual environment...
In our debian systems we use python from apt and all modules from apt.
If there is a module we can't find then we build it into a .deb using
setup.py to build an rpm and converting to a .deb.
The app is then tested with "etch" or whatever.
If easy_install could build debs that would be really helpful!
> Suggestions on build/rollout tools (like zc.buildout, Paver, etc) would
> also be appreciated.
Use setup.py to build into .debs is what we do.
--
Nick Craig-Wood <nick at craig-wood.com> -- http://www.craig-wood.com/nick
More information about the Python-list
mailing list