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 vinay.sajip
Recipients brett.cannon, donovick, vinay.sajip
Date 2019-06-20.21:53:32
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1561067612.38.0.534738495266.issue37349@roundup.psfhosted.org>
In-reply-to
Content
> Is there an architecture that would be less objectionable?

One thing I would consider is the ability to configure a custom_script_path in the same way as other parameters are now. It would be used as follows: If not None, it should specify a directory, and the files in there would be copied to the target venv *after* the standard scripts are copied (possibly overwriting ones already there, such as "activate"), with the same variable substitutions that are currently done.

This approach allows for other things than just custom environment variable setting, and so it seems a more generic solution to the issue of customisability. While it involves the developers who require such functionality to maintain those scripts, it seems fair to place the onus on them, and not on stdlib maintainers.
History
Date User Action Args
2019-06-20 21:53:32vinay.sajipsetrecipients: + vinay.sajip, brett.cannon, donovick
2019-06-20 21:53:32vinay.sajipsetmessageid: <1561067612.38.0.534738495266.issue37349@roundup.psfhosted.org>
2019-06-20 21:53:32vinay.sajiplinkissue37349 messages
2019-06-20 21:53:32vinay.sajipcreate