In article <58d49c5b-c837-4dac-b764-369fea025...@googlegroups.com>, Michael Herrmann <michael.herrm...@heliumhq.com> wrote:
> 1. Is it considered a bad idea in the Python community to ship one large Zip > file with all dependencies? Yes. > How do *you* prefer to obtain and install Python libraries? "pip install" > 2. Is it possible to distribute the library in a form that allows for an > offline installation without administrator privileges using other tools, > such as setuptools? You can use "pip --find-links" to point pip at a local repository of packages. That solves the offline part. And the "without admin privs" part is solved by setting up a virtualenv. > A hard requirement is that I can only ship binary distributions of my > library, as this is a proprietary product. I looked at Distutils and > Setuptools, where the recommended approach seems to be to simply ship all > sources. Keep in mind that shipping just the pyc files offers very weak protection against people examining your code. Google for "python decompile" and you'll find a number of projects. I'm looking at the docs for uncompyle now, which says: > 'uncompyle' converts Python byte-code back into equivalent Python > source. It accepts byte-code from Python version 2.7 only. > > The generated source is very readable: docstrings, lists, tuples and > hashes get pretty-printed. About the only thing not shipping Python source does is satisfy a check-box requirement that you not ship source. It may make the lawyers and bean-counters happy, but that's about it. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
