Home Original page

[Python-Dev] Python install layout and the PATH on win32

Mark Hammond mhammond at skippinet.com.au
Tue Mar 20 22:49:42 CET 2012 
On 21/03/2012 1:08 AM, Lindberg, Van wrote:
> On 3/20/2012 5:48 AM, Mark Hammond wrote:
>> While I'm still unclear on the actual benefits of this, Martin's
>> approach strikes a reasonable compromise so I withdraw my objections.
>
>
> Ok. I was out of town and so could not respond to most of the latest
> discussion.
>
> A question for you Mark, Paul, (and anyone else): Éric correctly points
> out that there are actually two distinct changes proposed here:
>
> 1. Moving the Python binary
> 2. Changing from "Scripts" to "bin"
>
> So far, the primary resistance seems to be to item #1 - moving the
> python binary. There have been a few people who have noted that #2 will
> require some code to change (i.e. Paul), but I don't see lots of resistance.
>
> Am I reading you correctly?

Well - as Paul implies, there are 2 distinct changes being proposed, but 
in 2 different environments.

For an installed Python:  If it has to move, it may as well move to 
somewhere consistent with other platforms.  IOW, moving to "bin" seems 
preferable to moving to Scripts.  My initial objection was to moving it 
at all in an installed Python.

For a virtual env, we are talking about moving it *from* Scripts to bin, 
which may cause some people different problems.  However, that isn't the 
concern I was expressing and I'd hate to see virtual envs remain 
inconsistent with an installed Python after this effort.

So I'm assuming that:
* The executable (and DLL) are moved to a "bin" directory in an 
installed Python.
* distutils etc will change to install all "scripts" (or executables 
generated from scripts) into that same directory.  IOW, "Scripts" would die.
* A virtual-env would have an almost identical layout to an installed 
Python.

Cheers,

Mark
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list