Author paul.moore
Recipients
Date 2007-07-12.10:35:53
SpamBayes Score
Marked as misclassified
Message-id
In-reply-to
Content
I like the -z option - I'm in favour of that as it stands (you need to add documentation). This is what the patch covers, and I'd like to see it implemented as is.

The helper script is useful, but not essential. To include in the distribution, you'd have to consider how to deploy it: module executable via -m, .py file in the Scripts directory, shell script/.bat file in the Scripts directory. Of these, only a module using -m is really portable. It may be easier just to just have it as sample code in the documentation which can be cut and pasted as required. (That's what I'd recommend).

For Windows, if you expect to define a file extension for these files, you need to consider console vs GUI issues. File extensions are more useful in a GUI context, so maybe .pyz files should be executed with "pythonw -z". Or maybe there should be 2 extensions, .pyz (console) and .pwz (GUI)? I don't have an answer to this, and honestly, if there's any controversy, I wouldn't bother, but just leave it to the user to decide and implement a local solution (much as Python doesn't add its directory to %PATH%) If you wanted to define a standard, you'd need patches to the Windows MSI builder to implement it.
History
Date User Action Args
2007-08-23 15:58:49adminlinkissue1739468 messages
2007-08-23 15:58:49admincreate