On Nov 10, 1:34 pm, Philip Semanchuk <phi...@semanchuk.com> wrote: > On Nov 9, 2009, at 9:16 PM, Gabriel Genellina wrote: > > > > > En Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:00:17 -0300, Philip Semanchuk <phi...@semanchuk.com > > > escribió: > >> On Nov 3, 2009, at 10:58 AM, Jonathan Hartley wrote: > > >>> Recently I put together this incomplete comparison chart in an > >>> attempt > >>> to choose between the different alternatives to py2exe: > > >>>http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tZ42hjaRunvkObFq0bKxVdg&output... > > >> I was interested in py2exe because we'd like to provide a one > >> download, one click install experience for our Windows users. I > >> think a lot of people are interested in py2exe for the same reason. > >> Well, one thing that I came across in my travels was the fact that > >> distutils can create MSIs. Like py2exe, MSIs provide a one > >> download, one click install experience under Windows and therefore > >> might be a replacement for py2exe. > > > But py2exe and .msi are complementary, not a replacement. > > py2exe collects in onedirectory(or even in one file in some cases) > > all the pieces necesary to run your application. That is,Python > > itself + your application code + all referenced libraries + other > > required pieces. > > The resulting files must beinstalledin the client machine; you > > either build a .msi file (a database for the Microsoft Installer) or > > use any other installer (like InnoSetup, the one I like). > > >> For me, the following command was sufficient to create an msi, > >> although it only worked under Windows (not under Linux or OS X): > >>pythonsetup.py bdist_msi > > >> The resulting MSI worked just fine in my extensive testing (read: I > >> tried it on one machine). > > > The resulting .msi file requiresPythonalreadyinstalledon the > > target machine, if I'm not mistaken. The whole point of py2exe is to > > avoid requiring a previousPythoninstall. > > You're right; the MSI I created doesn't include prerequisites. It > packaged up our app, that's it. To be fair to MSIs, they might be > capable of including prerequisites, the app, and the kitchen sink. But > I don't thinkPython'screation process through distutils makes that > possible. > > That's why I suggested MSIs belong alongside RPM/DEB in the chart (if > they're to be included at all). > > I wouldn't say that the whole point of py2exe is to bundlePython. > That's certainly a big benefit, but another benefit is that it can > bundle an app into a one-click download. That's why we were interested > in it. > > > > >> It seems, then, that creating an MSI is even within the reach of > >> someone like me who spends very little time in Windows-land, so it > >> might be worth a column on your chart alongside rpm/deb. > > > As said inhttp://wiki.python.org/moin/DistributionUtilitiesthe > > easiest way is to use py2exe + InnoSetup. > > Easiest for you. =) The list of packages and modules that might > require special treatment is almost a perfect superset of the modules > we're using in our > application:http://www.py2exe.org/index.cgi/WorkingWithVariousPackagesAndModules > > py2exe looks great, but it remains to be seen if it's the easiest way > to solve our problem. The MSI isn't nearly as nice for the end user, > but we created it using only thePythonstandard library and our > existing setup.py. Simplicity has value. > > Cheers > Philip
Hey Philip and Gabriel, Interesting to hear your respective perspectives - you've given me much to ponder and to read about. Personally I'm keen to find a method that doesn't require the end-user to have to manually install (the correct version of) Python separately from my app, so I think that rules out the distutils-generated MSI for me. I can see it has value for others though. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
