> On Mar 9, 2015, at 11:37 AM, Steve Dower <steve.do...@microsoft.com> wrote: > > Paul Moore wrote: >> I just thought I'd give installing Python 3.5 a go on my PC, now that >> 3.5a2 has come out. I didn't get very far (see earlier message) but it >> prompted >> me to think about how I'd use it, and what habits I'd need to change. >> >> I'd suggest that the "what's new in 3.5" document probably needs a section on >> the new installer that explains this stuff... > > This is true. Right now I'm in experimentation mode, and being more > aggressive about changing things than is probably a good idea (because it > solicits feedback like this :) ). When things settle down I expect to end up > closer to where we started, so there's not a huge amount of value in writing > it all up right now. I'll get there. > >> First of all, I always use "all users" installs, so I have Python in "Program >> Files" now. As a result, doing "pip install foo" requires elevation. As >> that's a >> PITA, I probably need to switch to using "pip install --user". All that's >> fine, >> and from there "py -3.5" works fine, as does "py -3.5 -m foo". But even if it >> is, not every entry point has a corresponding "-m" invocation (pygments' >> pygmentize command doesn't seem to, for example) > > I know you're already involved in this Paul, but for everyone else there's a > big discussion going on at https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/1668 about > changing pip's default behaviour to handle falling back to --user > automatically. > >> But suppose I want to put Python 3.5 on my PATH. The installer has an "add >> Python to PATH" checkbox, but (if I'm reading the WiX source right, I didn't >> select that on install) that doesn't add the user directory. So I need to add >> that to my PATH. Is that right? And of course, that means I need to *know* >> the >> user site directory ($env:LOCALAPPDATA\Python\Python35\Scripts), correct? > > Correct. There's no way to add a per-user directory to PATH from an all-users > installation (except for a few approaches that I expect/hope would trigger > malware detectors...) > >> Maybe the answer is that we simply start recommending that everyone on >> Windows >> uses per-user installs. It makes little difference to me (beyond the fact >> that >> when I want to look at the source of something in the stdlib, the location of >> the file is a lot harder to remember than C:\Apps\Python34\Lib\whatever.py) >> but >> I doubt it's what most people will expect. > > I'm okay with this. Installing for all users is really something that could > be considered an advanced option rather than the default, especially since > the aim (AIUI) of the all-users install is to pretend that Python was shipped > with the OS. (I'd kind of like to take that further by splitting things more > sensibly between Program Files, Common Files and System32, but there's very > little gain from that and much MUCH pain as long as people are still > expecting C:\PythonXY installs…)
Maybe the answer is to write up a PEP and standardize the idea of entry points,
specifically the console_scripts and ui_scripts (or whatever it’s called)
entrypoints and then give Python something like -m, but which executes a
specific entry point name instead of a module name (or maybe -m can fall back
to looking at entry points? I don’t know).
I’ve given this like… 30s worth of thought, but maybe:
pip install pygmentize # Implicit —user
py -e pygmetize
Is an OK UX for people to have without needing to add the user site bin
directory to their PATH. Maybe it’s a horrible idea and we should all forget I
mentioned it :)
---
Donald Stufft
PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
