[IPython-user] Got bdist_wininst working for IPython ...

Viktor Ransmayr viktor.ransmayr at t-online.de
Tue Jan 11 16:04:19 CST 2005

Hi Fernando,

I wrote:

> Hi Fernando,
> You wrote:
>> Viktor Ransmayr wrote:
>>> No problem. I'm happy if I can contribute. - Now about this next 
>>> version.
>>> I don't know how much time you spent looking at my modifications yet.
>>> However I still have a few questions about the further proceeding:
>>> 1) There is no need to install pywin32 for the installation process 
>>> on window.
>>>     - At least not for bdist_wininst. - Should anything be checked 
>>> during the
>>>     import or do you think a simple message, stating that pywin32, 
>>> ctypes
>>>    and readline are recommended is sufficient ?
>> I'd say printing a user message would be a very good idea.  ipython 
>> will _work_ without this stuff, but it will lack some of its nicest 
>> functionality (readline and coloring).  So a prominent message in 
>> this direction would certainly help.  A simple
>> try:
>>   import ctypes
>> except ImportError:
>>   print 'get ctypes from http://....'
>> and similar for readline would be very good to have.  No need to 
>> bother users who already have them with this, though.
> OK. - I'll add such a check to my next version of the vr_* version of 
> the scripts.
>>> 2) I'm not sure what should be done in the case of cmd=bdist ? - 
>>> What I did
>>>     not like about the way "IPython-0.6.6.zip" worked, was the fact 
>>> that it did
>>>     install files outside of ..\Lib\site-packages\IPython\ without 
>>> giving me any
>>>     means to deinstall. (Other than saving the complete output of 
>>> the install-
>>>     cmd into a log-file and removing everything by hand :-)
>>>     Do you have an idea/ a plan or do you think that simply removing 
>>> the
>>>     usage of the post-installation script completely from the 
>>> zip-archive is
>>>     sufficient and/or acceptable ?
>> Mmh, I think I'm a bit confused here.  I guess our ultimate goal is 
>> the following:
>> 1.  An ipython_setup.exe real windows installer is available, which 
>> can both install AND uninstall ipython by the usual windows 
>> mechanisms, leaving no junk behind it after uninstallation.
>> 2.  The ability for windows users, if necessary, to run by hand in a 
>> terminal 'python setup.py install' and have the thing work as well.   
>> I think it's acceptable in this scenario to lose uninstallation 
>> capabilities, since they don't really exist with a manual install 
>> under unix either.  Under unix, if you want uninstall capabilities, 
>> you need to use a package manager (rpm, apt, fink), so the same 
>> applies for windows (the .exe installer playing the role of a package 
>> manager).
>> My understanding is that we already have #1 with your work.  It's 
>> just a matter of keeping #2 as an option, for those who download the 
>> sources.  I'm even willing to stop distributing .zips once the .exe 
>> installer becomes available: a source install for windows users will 
>> be at that point a much more rare occurrence, and I expect it to be 
>> done only by very technically minded users.  Since winzip can handle 
>> .tar.gz files just fine, they can always grab that.
>> This means that it's OK to remove the hacks I had to inject an 
>> 'install' command into sys.argv in setup.py for windows users.   The 
>> question I have is, what does setup.py see when it is called by the 
>> .exe installer?  What does sys.argv look like in that scenario?  We 
>> basically need some way of distinguishing if it's being called by the 
>> .exe installer, who will in turn execute the post_install script 
>> itself, or by a user at a command line, case in which we need to run 
>> it ourselves.  Is this possible?
> I'll work on that question tonight. - I'll keep you informed.

Two initial statements:

o At this point in time I can still only provide my understanding of the 
w/o having verified this with _another running_ prototype (yet).

o Re-Reading this mail-thread I also get the feeling that I have 
"misslead" you with some
   of the terminolgy and cmd-usages I've mentioned, quite a bit as well :-(

However here's my current summary and initial answer :-)

1) Distribution time vs. Installation time

1.1) At distribution time the _developer_ can create a

1.1.1) module/ extension either as a

   - source-distribution (via sdist-cmd)
OR as a
   - binary-distribution (via bdist*-cmd) He/ She can create such a distribution either

  - implicitely ( w/o specifiying the format-parameter)
  - explicitely ( w/ specifiying the format-parameter )

1.2) At installation time the _user_ can execute a

1.2.1) module/ extension created w/ a source-distribution

  - via the install-cmd

OR can execute a

1.2.2) module/ extension created w/ a binary-distribution

  - via "installing" the distributed EXE
  - via "installing" the distributed RPM
  - etc.

This is a very long intro to simply say, that I think your current use 
(as of 0.6.6)
of the post_install-script, directly inside the setup-script, has not 
been "envisioned"
by the distutils-developers.

However I'll verify this (current personal) view on the distutils 



More information about the IPython-user mailing list