Re: State of the art: Tkinter, Tk 8.5, Tix?
On Jan 10, 11:45 am, r wrote: > We need TK 8.5's themes. This will bring Tkinter out of the dark ages > and into the 21st Century! And improve the shine of the Python base > distro. Python could use a good boost right now! Could someone please explain what Tix provides compared to what the new stuff in Tk 8.5 provides? Is there much overlap? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Egg deinstallation
On Jan 12, 9:36 am, mk wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I googled and googled and can't seem to find the definitive answer: how > to *properly* deinstall egg? Just delete the folder and/or .py and .pyc > files from Lib/site-packages? Would that break anything in Python > installation or not? As an aside, note that there's no automated way to uninstall (for exmaple, like doing "aptitude purge" or "make uninstall"). It's a known problem with setuptools/eggs/easy_install/whatever. Dunno if pip [1] yet solves this problem or not. http://pip.openplans.org/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: LGPL license for Qt 4.5
On Jan 14, 9:20 am, sturlamolden wrote: > > In either case, Qt will be available under the same licensing terms as > wxWidgets. > > As of today, the main reason to prefer wxPython over PyQt is the > license. With an LGPL'd Qt, I'd rather ask what this will mean for > wxPython. wx has a nice community, and is actively developed, FWICT. I've also heard that its maintainer is very responsive. However, my impression is that the main appeal of wx is that it's API is similar to MS Windows MFC (an appeal only for (some) MS Windows developers though) and that it has favorable licensing conditions (like GTK+). Further, I suspect that Pythoneers have been using and recommending it because it's currently the least worst solution. Now that LGPL Qt is very nearly here, I'd say that wxWidgets is going to have a very challenging time ahead. Very challenging. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Need help with os.system in linux
On Jan 16, 7:05 pm, akshay bhat wrote: > Hello > i am calling a program using os.system in python on Linux. > However in i found that program being executed and soon returned 256. > but when i ran it using terminal i got proper results. > Now in case of windows, python waits till the process is finished, > Can you please tell me how to implement this in linux? Maybe it runs faster in GNU/Linux? :) Either way, you probably want to post some minimal example code if you would like more help on this. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Recommendation for a small web framework like Perl's CGI::Application to run as CGI?
I need to make a small, relatively low-traffic site that users can create accounts on and log into. Scripts must run as cgi (no mod_python or FastCGI is available). Can anyone recommend a small and simple web framework for Python, maybe similar to Perl's CGI::Application? Or would it just be better to roll my own? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Recommendation for a small web framework like Perl's CGI::Application to run as CGI?
On Jan 27, 4:52 pm, Tim Chase wrote: > > I need to make a small, relatively low-traffic site that users can > > create accounts on and log into. Scripts must run as cgi (no > > mod_python or FastCGI is available). Can anyone recommend a small and > > simple web framework for Python, maybe similar to Perl's > > CGI::Application? > > > Or would it just be better to roll my own? > > What are you looking for in your framework? Python comes with > its own CGI module[1]. For the most basic of sites, this works > nicely. > > However, if you want to be able to easily slide into a bigger > environment, I've been pleased with WebStack[2] for my > lightweight needs. [snip] Thanks, Tim. I don't think WebStack is what I'm looking for, but will investigate doing things by hand with the cgi module and using Python's own built-in simple templating. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Recommendation for a small web framework like Perl's CGI::Application to run as CGI?
On Jan 27, 4:52 pm, Tim Chase wrote: > > I need to make a small, relatively low-traffic site that users can > > create accounts on and log into. Scripts must run as cgi (no > > mod_python or FastCGI is available). Can anyone recommend a small and > > simple web framework for Python, maybe similar to Perl's > > CGI::Application? > > > Or would it just be better to roll my own? > > What are you looking for in your framework? Well, let's see. I don't need a templating library, since -- as you pointed out -- I can just use Python's own. I don't need a db interface (can just make my own dbapi calls if needed). Don't need url mapping (can just use mod_rewrite rules in my .htaccess to point at my cgi scripts). Don't think I need any i80n. And I don't need an admin interface. ... It would seem that I don't need a whole lot at the moment. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Recommendation for a small web framework like Perl's CGI::Application to run as CGI?
On Jan 27, 7:28 pm, James Mills wrote: > > One option is to configure Apache with mod_wsgi and just > use WSGI. Fairly simple really and much like CGI. This is a shared hosting arrangement, so I don't have the option of adding an apache module. Also, if it's much like CGI, I don't see what benefit it would provide over CGI in this situation. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Recommendation for a small web framework like Perl's CGI::Application to run as CGI?
On Jan 28, 4:57 am, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: > > What about:http://thraxil.org/code/cgi_app/ > > (yes, it is a port of CGI::Application, and FWIW it's mentionned on the > CGI::Application's wiki). > Nice find. Thank you. Interesting project. It seems to be only one fairly short file (perhaps that's all it takes), and its most recent release was in 2004. No mailing list. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Recommendation for a small web framework like Perl's CGI::Application to run as CGI?
On Jan 28, 5:05 am, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote: > > Werkzeug[1] should be in your line, I think. > > [1]http://werkzeug.pocoo.org/ > Again, the solution must work for plain vanilla CGI. I don't have WSGI available. But thank you. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: small python-cgi wiki?
On Jan 28, 12:02 pm, Bernard Rankin wrote: > > I'm looking to set up a small private wiki, and am looking for > recommendations. > > Some sort of CGI based package that I could just untar somewhere web > accessable via Apache would be great. There are a number of them listed at http://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonWikiEngines . You might have a look at PikiPiki. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Recommendation for a small web framework like Perl's CGI::Application to run as CGI?
On Jan 28, 1:33 pm, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote: > -On [20090128 19:01], excord80 (excor...@gmail.com) wrote: > > >Again, the solution must work for plain vanilla CGI. I don't have WSGI > >available. But thank you. > > It works for plain CGI. I myself use it for FCGI. Thanks, Jeroen. After looking at the Werkzeug "deploying" page, it seems as though one is able to write a WSGI webapp and have it work via CGI using something called wsgiref. Sounds good. If that's correct, it would be great if there were a Werkzeug tutorial on deploying it for use with CGI. Will look into wsgiref and Werkzeug. Thanks! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Recommendation for a small web framework like Perl's CGI::Application to run as CGI?
On Jan 28, 3:10 pm, Fred Pacquier wrote: > > That would be something close to Karrigell... You know, I stumbled across Karrigell while looking around but was initially uninterested because of what initially seems like a lack of direction. That is, they tell you that you can use it any way you like: * python script * K service * html inside python * python inside html * cgi script So, I wasn't sure what to make of that. However, perhaps it's a strength... will have to look more into K. Thanks. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
importlib: what is it, and why is it important?
Regarding this blog post: http://sayspy.blogspot.com/2009/01/importlib-is-now-in-python-31.html When I use the ``import foo`` statement at the top of my program, I get a module imported. python has a search path it follows, finds the module, and makes it available to my program. Works nice. :) So, could someone explain what importlib exactly is, and why this new version that will be in Python 3.1 is significant? Will the import statement work differently in 3.1, and if so, in what way? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
How can I do this (from Perl) in Python? (closures)
I just came across http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2002/05/29/closure.html and wanted to try the "canonical example of closures" in Python. I came up with the following, but it fails: ### #!/usr/bin/env python def make_counter(start_num): start = start_num def counter(): start += 1 return counter from_ten = make_counter(10) from_three = make_counter(3) print from_ten() # 10 print from_ten() # 11 print from_three() # 3 print from_ten() # 12 print from_three() # 4 The error message is: "UnboundLocalError: local variable 'start' referenced before assignment". The same thing happens if I omit start and just use start_num directly. How can I do it in Python? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Number of Python 3.x packages at the PyPI
Is there an easy way to see the number of PyPI packages which have been ported to Python 3? Are there any special arrangements necessary for PyPI packages which have both a Python 2.x version and a Python 3.x version? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Number of Python 3.x packages at the PyPI
On Dec 7, 12:21 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Martin>http://pypi.python.org/pypi?:action=browse&c=533 > > Martin> It seems that some package authors only classify with > > Martin> Programming Language :: Python :: 3 > > I did a release for lockfile yesterday which supports 3.0. I added the > "Programming Language :: Python :: 3.0" tag, but not the more inlusive tag > above. I just updated the information to include it so it now appears in > the search results. > > Skip Should specifying the 3.0 tag implicity and automatically specify the 3 tag as well? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Strengths and weaknesses of Pygame vs. pyglet vs. PyOpenGL?
Trying to decide which to get started with. Can anyone suggest some pros and cons to each of them? Would PyOpenGL be in the same camp as Pygame and pyglet? Do either of Pygame or pyglet make use of PyOpenGL behind the scenes? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Strengths and weaknesses of Pygame vs. pyglet vs. PyOpenGL?
On Dec 7, 8:17 pm, "Patrick Mullen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 4:43 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [snip] > PyOpengl - an opengl wrapper. Version 2 is written in c, version 3 > instead uses ctypes > Pyglet - an opengl + events/sound/etc wrapper written in ctypes Does pyglet use PyOpenGL as its OpenGL wrapper? If not, any idea why? Seems like it would be a fairly substantial duplication of effort. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
How do I manually uninstall setuptools (installed by egg)?
On Ubuntu, I accidentally manually installed setuptools http://pypi.python.org/pypi/setuptools/0.6c9 (by running the .egg file as a shell script via sudo), and now realize I should just be using apt to take care of my system Python packages. I also installed one or two packages using its ``easy_install``. Looks like it lives in ``/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages``. How can I manually remove those packages installed using that ``easy_install``, and then manually remove the setuptools package I installed? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: How do I manually uninstall setuptools (installed by egg)?
On Dec 9, 10:04 pm, "Chris Rebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, why do you think apt and not setuptools is The Right Way(tm)? I like to keep > 1 Python on my computer. 1. First, there's the system Python, which is installed by my OS and which I try not to mess with too much. I'm guessing Ubuntu uses this Python for various system jobs, preferences apps, etc. I try to only use apt with *this* Python. 2. Then there's my *own* Python. Maybe installed in ``/opt/py-i.j.k, or---more likely---``~/opt/py-i.j.k``. *This* is the one where I've previously made regular use of setuptools and ``easy_install``. If I break this one somehow, it doesn't foul up my system Python in any way, and it's easy to scrap it and start anew if I like. So, I'd like to get my *system* Python back to its "fresh out of the Ubuntu showroom" condition and remove *that* setuptools. As an aside, I'm a bit struck by how long the setuptools/easy_install manuals are, and a bit dismayed at the lack of an easy_install uninstall command. Thinking of trying life for a while without setuptools/easy_install. Will have to see how far I get. :) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: How do I manually uninstall setuptools (installed by egg)?
On Dec 9, 10:15 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 at 18:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Ubuntu, I accidentally manually installed setuptools > >http://pypi.python.org/pypi/setuptools/0.6c9(by running the .egg file > > as a shell script via sudo), and now realize I should just be using > > apt to take care of my system Python packages. I also installed one or > > two packages using its ``easy_install``. > > > Looks like it lives in ``/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages``. > > > How can I manually remove those packages installed using that > > ``easy_install``, and then manually remove the setuptools package I > > installed? > > rm -r /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/ Ok. "" presumably refers to the packages I installed using the ``easy_install`` command. I'm guessing I should also jettison the ``setuptools-0.6c9-py2.5.egg`` and ``setuptools.pth`` files. > Then find the .pth file (in the site-packages directory) that > references the egg, and delete the line referencing the egg. I guess you mean the ``easy-install.pth`` file. Ok. I should probably also get rid of ``/usr/bin/easy_install`` and ``/usr/ bin/easy_install-2.5``... > Setuptools has no uninstall function, as far as I know. Unfortunate. It's usually one of the first things I look for in a piece of software. Thanks. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: How do I manually uninstall setuptools (installed by egg)?
On Dec 9, 10:29 pm, "Chris Rebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 7:16 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Dec 9, 10:04 pm, "Chris Rebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> So, why do you think apt and not setuptools is The Right Way(tm)? > > > I like to keep > 1 Python on my computer. > > Ah, now I get it. I had no idea setuptools could install Python > *itself* until I checked just now. That's kinda neat, but mostly > silly, because, as you point out, management of Python itself is much > better left to the platform's package manager. > Not sure what you mean, Chris. I install my own Python using the usual procedure (``./configure -- prefix=/home/me/opt/py-..; make; make install``). Never heard of using setuptools (``easy_install``?) to install Python itself. Sounds kooky. :) Anyway, the direction I'm heading is to try and use setuptools *less*. It seems like it might be too complicated for me. And, I notice that the mailing list for it (distutils-sig, if that's the right one) is loaded with questions on how to use it properly, so maybe I'm not alone. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: How do I manually uninstall setuptools (installed by egg)?
On Dec 10, 7:45 am, "Diez B. Roggisch" wrote: > excor...@gmail.com wrote: > > > As an aside, I'm a bit struck by how long the setuptools/easy_install > > manuals are, and a bit dismayed at the lack of an easy_install > > uninstall command. Thinking of trying life for a while without > > setuptools/easy_install. Will have to see how far I get. :) > > To *long* manuals? So far I haven't heard that complaint in the FOSS > world... I didn't say that the manuals were too long, I said I was *struck by* how long they are. I read them through a while back, and they seemed long and confusing to me at the time. While reading, I kept thinking, "this should be simpler" and "why does a seemingly simple tool need such a long manual?". Maybe setuptools/easy_install/eggs is not overly complicated, but it seems that way to me. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: How do I manually uninstall setuptools (installed by egg)?
On Dec 9, 10:48 pm, excor...@gmail.com wrote: > > Anyway, the direction I'm heading is to try and use setuptools *less*. > It seems like it might be too complicated for me. And, I notice that > the mailing list for it (distutils-sig, if that's the right one) is > loaded with questions on how to use it properly, so maybe I'm not > alone. Ah. This is interesting: http://www.b-list.org/weblog/2008/dec/14/packaging/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: New Python 3.0 string formatting - really necessary?
On Dec 19, 11:01 am, walterbyrd wrote:
>
> To me, it seems that this:
>
> print "%s=%d" % ('this',99)
>
> Is much easier, and faster, to type, and is also easier to read and
> understand. [snip]
>
> This (if it's right) is much longer, and requires more special
> characters.
>
> print( "{0}={1}".format('this',99))
>
Yeah, I like the old way better too. It's got this nice elegant
simplicity to it (using the percent sign for not only the things
inside the string, but also to separate it from the tuple that
follows). Also, I like having only *one* special symbol (`%') to worry
about in my strings instead of two (`{' and `}').
But, Python is Python. So I'll keep using the old way until they
deprecate it, and then just get used to the new way. One reason I use
Python is because I really *don't* have the time or inclination to
question every little design decision and argue about alternatives. If
you want to tweak the language to suit your personal tastes, you might
prefer Perl 6.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: ANN: New Book: Programming in Python 3
On Dec 4, 2:42 pm, Alan G Isaac wrote: > Mark Summerfield wrote: > > "Programming in Python 3: > > A Complete Introduction to the Python Language" > > ISBN 0137129297 > >http://www.qtrac.eu/py3book.html > > OMG, you really wrote it in Lout? > I wish you would add to http://www.qtrac.eu/lout.html > a comment on what you get out of that > (compared to using e.g., LaTeX or > reStructuredText). I'm also curious about why you chose Lout over LaTeX or reST. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Building a web questionnaire, can it be done in Python ?
On Dec 19, 11:58 am, Stef Mientki wrote: > hello, > > I'm considering building a web questionnaire in Python. > I've made several desktop applications in Python / wxPython, > but I've no experience in using Python on a webserver, > and I don't have much knowledge about web applications in general. > Ah. You want to report directly to the Django tutorial: http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/intro/tutorial01/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If your were going to program a game...
On Jan 1, 2:37 pm, Kay Schluehr wrote: > There is no solution to this problem from a Python perspective. Do > what everyone does right now: [snip] It still surprises me that no one has implemented the solution for this yet. Maybe it's harder than it seems, but it *seeems* like it's just a matter of telling Firefox, "hey, when you see this special html element that tells you to run this python code from the web, do it". Then have FF load up a python interpreter, sandbox it somehow (that is, limit it to only a safe subset of its std lib), it runs the code within its region of the browser window, and Bob's your uncle. People would go bonkers for that. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Chart libs for python
You might start by having a look at the wiki: http://wiki.python.org/moin/NumericAndScientific/Plotting -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
mod_pylite?
Just read this interesting post by chromatic on what features Perl 5 needs right now http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2008/12/five-features-perl-5-needs-now.html and he mentions a neat-looking project called ``mod_perlite``. It sounds like it will be very handy. Anyone working on a ``mod_pylite``? Has it been done before, maybe under a different name? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: mod_pylite?
On Jan 1, 9:12 pm, s...@pobox.com wrote: > >>http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2008/12/five-features-perl-5-needs-now.html > > >> and he mentions a neat-looking project called ``mod_perlite``. It > >> sounds like it will be very handy. Anyone working on a > >> ``mod_pylite``? Has it been done before, maybe under a different > >> name? > > It's kind of hard to tell. There's very little description of how > mod_perlite would be different than mod_perl other than it would be more > lightweight, presumably as mod_php somehow is. That hardly seems like a > well-defined requirement document. > > Does mod_wsgi fit the bill?http://www.rkblog.rk.edu.pl/w/p/mod_wsgi/ > I'm not sure if it fits the bill or not. The bill is two-fold: 1. The Apache module should present little risk to the admin who installs it. That is, it should not expose Apache's innards. 2. The Apache module should keep a Python instance running; run, for example, ``foo.py`` when a user accesses (for example) ``http:// www.example.com/path/to/foo.py?baz=88``; pass baz=88 to foo.py in the usual way; and return whatever html that script spits out. I'm not familiar with php or ``mod_php``, but I suspect that setup does something very similar to what's described above. This might explain why it's so blasted easy to deploy php scripts and create small and simple sites (and even not-so-small/simple sites) with it. Does mod_wsgi fit that bill? I don't know. The docs seem to be at http://code.google.com/p/modwsgi/w/list . Many of those are named "ChangesInVersion". I don't see any that named anything like "Introduction" or "BasicUsage" or "SimpleUsageLikeCGI" or even "Tutorial". So, my guess is that ``mod_wsgi`` doesn't fit the bill. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: mod_pylite?
On Jan 1, 11:40 pm, Graham Dumpleton wrote: > On Jan 2, 2:28 pm, excord80 wrote: > > > > > On Jan 1, 9:12 pm, s...@pobox.com wrote: > > > > > > > >>http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2008/12/five-features-perl-5-needs-now.html > > > > >> and he mentions a neat-looking project called ``mod_perlite``. It > > > >> sounds like it will be very handy. Anyone working on a > > > >> ``mod_pylite``? Has it been done before, maybe under a different > > > >> name? > > > > It's kind of hard to tell. There's very little description of how > > > mod_perlite would be different than mod_perl other than it would be more > > > lightweight, presumably as mod_php somehow is. That hardly seems like a > > > well-defined requirement document. > > > > Doesmod_wsgifit the bill?http://www.rkblog.rk.edu.pl/w/p/mod_wsgi/ > > > I'm not sure if it fits the bill or not. The bill is two-fold: > > > 1. The Apache module should present little risk to the admin who > > installs it. That is, it should not expose Apache's innards. > > > 2. The Apache module should keep a Python instance running; run, for > > example, ``foo.py`` when a user accesses (for example) > > ``http://www.example.com/path/to/foo.py?baz=88``; pass baz=88 to foo.py in > > the > > usual way; and return whatever html that script spits out. > > > I'm not familiar with php or ``mod_php``, but I suspect that setup > > does something very similar to what's described above. This might > > explain why it's so blasted easy to deploy php scripts and create > > small and simple sites (and even not-so-small/simple sites) with it. > > > Doesmod_wsgifit that bill? I don't know. [snip] > > Have you looked up what the WSGI specification for Python even is? > > http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0333/ > http://www.wsgi.org/wsgi/Learn_WSGI > Hi Graham, thanks for the links. I took a quick look at some of the articles on the Learn_WSGI page, but regrettably, my free time for this stuff has evaporated for now. > If you understand what WSGI is, then you will realise that mod_wsgi is > a very slim adapter for Apache that allows one to host any WSGI > application. [snip] > > All WSGI is about > is providing a most minimal interface for communicating with the web > server, It sounds interesting, however, after reading a bit about it, I see that a large part of wsgi is providing a nice interface between web server and webapp. I don't think I need any such interface, or at least, a replacement for CGI. I just need something like CGI but with a persistent Python so the web server doesn't have to restart python for every request. And I don't need need it to work with anything else other than Apache. I think that actually probably sums up what a lot of users want. For better or worse, most people use Apache. Apache works and is free software. And it's either already installed, or easy to install. And shared hosting providers already have it available. > This doesn't mean you couldn't use mod_wsgi to effectively achieve the > same thing though, [snip] I can't say I understand the details of wsgi, but if it does what I'm asking, and if shared hosting providers can be coaxed into installing mod_wsgi, then I think a fast-track to wide adoption for wsgi would be to provide an out-of-the-box drop-in little-to-no-configuration- required solution for getting php-style small webapps going as described above. If your answer to that is, "Oh no! WSGI is more general than that! You can do it, but can also do X, Y, Z ...", then I'm sorry, but I don't have the time right now to learn about all the details, and about things like Paste and middleware. Again, I'm only using Apache, and I only want the script to run when I access it in a url and to get its output back to the browser. Yes, I realize this is bush-league, but the php folks have been doing it for a long while now, and it works ok for small webapps and shared hosting setups, so I'm reluctant to thumb my nose at it. > If you want to talk more about this, come over to the mod_wsgi list on > Google Groups. Thank you, but, as I mentioned, my free time right now is in the negative numbers. Bleh. I wish it weren't so. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Creating an application for Linux
You might find this recent blog post interesting: http://www.mechanicalcat.net/richard/log/Python/Sane_Python_application_packaging__initial_solution -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
State of the art: Tkinter, Tk 8.5, Tix?
Does Python work with Tk 8.5? I'm manually installing my own Python 2.6.1 (separate from my system's Python 2.5.2), and am about to install my own Tcl/Tk 8.5 but am unsure how to make them talk to eachother. Should I install Tk first? If I put Tk into my home directory (under "~/opt" most likely), is there some configure option I need to pass Python to tell it where to find my Tk? Also, I see that Python comes with Tix. Was Tix supposed to be something to make up for what was lacking in Tk prior to its 8.5 release? Is Tix here to stay, or has it been eclipsed by what comes with Tk 8.5 OOTB? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Printed Documentation
On Jan 7, 4:00 pm, floob wrote: > I have been searching for a way to print the official Python > documentation into some kind of book (for my own uses). I don't > really care if it's printed on newspaper and bound with elmer's > glue ... any way I can get relatively recent _official documentation_ > in print form will do. > > I'm on the go a lot, and can't read for long periods of time on LCD > screens anyhow (so having a laptop is not my solution). Until eBook > readers grow up a bit, I'm stuck trying to print the documentation > that I REALLY need to read and absorb. > > Lulu.com is an option, but it would cost something around $100 US > before shipping to get everything printed. Also, I would have to > split up some larger documents into Volumes, which I'd rather not have > to do. > > Has anyone tried this before? Is the documentation already available > in print? > > Thanks, > > drfloob http://docs.python.org/download.html I'd try taking the pdf to my local print shop and ask how much they'd charge. Local print shops have options for various bindings too. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Printed Documentation
On Jan 7, 5:14 pm, floob wrote: > On Jan 7, 1:39 pm, excord80 wrote: > > > > > On Jan 7, 4:00 pm, floob wrote: > > > > I have been searching for a way to print the official Python > > > documentation into some kind of book (for my own uses). > > > > http://docs.python.org/download.html > > > I'd try taking the pdf to my local print shop and ask how much they'd > > charge. > > > Local print shops have options for various bindings too. > > I tried 7 print shops in my area. Five refused to print single-run > books (minimum quantity of 100). Of the 2 that WOULD print a single > set of books, the cheapest was $250.00 (spiral bound, no covers, 8.5" > x 11", cheapest paper available). Oh, heck. In that case, I'd just take the pdf on a flash drive to my local Fedex Kinkos and use their self-server printing machines and print it myself. If you can get it to print double-sided, it should cost half as much. Then just 3-hole-punch what you print out and put it into a 3-ring binder. I've done this myself in the past for docs that I wanted to have on my shelf and it works great. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
