This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author paul.moore
Recipients ajaksu2, ceder, eric.araujo, fdrake, kbk, mhammond, paul.moore, tarek, tim.peters, timcera
Date 2010-08-01.12:38:34
SpamBayes Score 1.207319e-05
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <AANLkTim5qWh8kSeEwRRBOG27tk9_qv=a+KVb4dikk3rt@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <1280662358.96.0.380525871598.issue870479@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
Thanks for clarifying.

No, I don't agree. Barring fancy "if os.platform" games in setup.py,
scripts will be platform-independent Python code. From "Distributing
Python Modules" section 2.5, "Scripts are files containing Python
source code", and as such, should follow the normal rules for Python
code (from the language reference section 2.1.2, "In source files, any
of the standard platform line termination sequences can be used").

On Windows, that's the end of the story. I believe Unix is the same,
although it's possible that the #! line processing may rely on \n line
endings - I can't comment on this.

The question here is not about the scripts themselves, but rather
about how they are installed. My view is very simple:

- Scripts should be named with a .py extension
- On Windows, they should be installed with a .py extension
- On Unix, I'd be happy with a .py extension, but some Unix users hate
extensions on commands, and dispute this. (Hence either renaming or
wrapper suggestions :-)).
- There is some debate as to whether "wrappers" should be generated
(shell script on Unix, exe on Windows). I'd prefer not, some people
like them. Ideally, it should be user-configurable, but that's going
to be messy in the case of bdist_xxx installers.
History
Date User Action Args
2010-08-01 12:38:36paul.mooresetrecipients: + paul.moore, tim.peters, mhammond, fdrake, kbk, ceder, ajaksu2, timcera, tarek, eric.araujo
2010-08-01 12:38:35paul.moorelinkissue870479 messages
2010-08-01 12:38:34paul.moorecreate