Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> added the comment: > - Will “@%~dp0\..\python.exe” get the proper path for people who do not > install Python to C:\?
%~dp0\..\python.exe locates python relative to the batch file (one directory up) so will work as long as the bat file is in Scripts. The @ just suppresses echo of the command. > - Aren’t there issues with .bat scripts (or maybe it’s with .com scripts, I > never remember)? Yes. They don't nest, so to invoke pysetup in a batch file, you need to write "call pysetup.bat". If you just use "pysetup", the command never returns causing silent failures. Personally, I hate bat files for this reason alone, but others seem happy to put up with them. > - Shouldn’t we install a pysetup.py script instead? That would be better, in my view. > - Shouldn’t we generate an .exe file instead (see #12394)? exe files probably give the best user experience, but are opaque which is mildly annoying. Also, test very carefully on Win7. I have a vague recollection that exes with setup and/or install in the names invoke UAC, which is a complete pain. easy_install suffers from this, I believe. > In other words, I need more info from Windows experts about what works best > for Python developers :) Personally, "python -m packaging.run" works fine for me. I'd prefer not to have a pysetup command at all, and change the documentation to refer to the python -m form throughout. Second best would be an exe, third would be pysetup.py (but again, the docs need changing), and finally a bat file. Another option would be a runnable pysetup module, so that python -m pysetup (or maybe an install.py so python -m install) would work. Paul. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue14027> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
