On Sep 20, 2005, at 5:44 PM, Steve Holden wrote:
> Thomas Heller wrote:
>> I'm slowly getting tired maintaining py2exe. It is far from perfect,
>> although it has interesting features (I would say).
>> The problem, apart from the work, is that it is good enough for me
>> - I
>> can do everything that I need with it. But I assume I use far less
>> libaries than other Python programmers, so a lot of bugs will
>> never bite
>> It is also interesting that the recently introduced bundle-files
>> which allows to build single-file exes has gained a lot of interest -
>> although the ONLY use case (so far) I have myself for it is to
>> inproc COM servers which will compatible with Python clients (and
>> Python inproc COM servers) because of the total isolation of the
>> Is anyone interested in taking over the maintainance,
>> documentation, and
>> further development?
>> Should py2exe be integrated into another, larger, package? Pywin32
>> comes to mind, but also Philip Eby's setuptools (that's why I post to
>> distutils-sig as well)...
> Ignoring all the philosophical questions I'd like to thank you for
> all your hard work on py2exe over the years, which has benefited
> the Windows Python community immeasurably.
I'd like to thank you as well. Although I'm primarily a Mac OS X
(and various other *nix-ish things) user myself, I have used py2exe
on several occasions to package a commercial product and to give
various one-off applications to clients.
py2exe was also a large inspiration for py2app (which I have been
neglecting lately). py2exe (and py2app) currently do everything I
need them do (albeit with a little prodding), so that's why I've done
so little with it in the past few months.
I hope that the packager-future will be largely setuptools based and
that the various platform-specific packagers will share a lot more
code in the future (setuptools, modulegraph, etc.), making
maintenance easier and more fun for everyone. This was my primary
use case when I was initially discussing the egg spec with PJE back
around pycon-time (though I have been unfortunately useless
implementing and evolving it).
Right now, I think the packagers and the packages are at odds,
because the packagers need metadata that the packages don't provide
(in a pre-setuptools universe)... so right now users (or the
packagers) need to know a lot of magic incantations to make the
various complicated Python packages work, where with setuptools based
packages the magic incantations are built-in :)