----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Brandmeyer" <jbr...@ea...>
> Here is one idea for Debian that looks consistant with other Debian
> packages on my system. I think that as binary debs, Vpython could be
> installed in three packages, like this:
>
> python2.2-visual:
> Install runtime shared object library and runtime scripts in
> /usr/lib/site-packages/visual
> Install documentation in /usr/share/doc/python-visual
>
> python2.2-visual-examples:
> Install the demonstration scripts in
> /usr/share/doc/python-visual/examples
>
> (until no longer required)
> python2.2-visual-idle:
> Install the scripts in /usr/bin/python-visual-idle
> , with a symlink from /usr/bin/python-visual/idle.py to
> /usr/bin/vidle.py
>
> Can anyone confirm or refute similar behavior on other Linux
> distributions? Since I custom built my visual componants, I have
> everything installed under /usr/local instead of /usr, using the same
> scheme.
This looks consistent with what I see on RedHat 8.0. It's a reasonable
suggestion to put the demos in with the documentation, but note that a user
recently ask that the demos be put in site-packages/visual, because he's
used to looking there for everything (other than documentation?). What do
others think?
> Arthur has convinced me that the right way to go for source and binary
> distributions is to provide a setup.py (or other appropriate mechanism,
> e.g, debs, windows exe) that does The Right Thing. IMO, The Right Thing
> is that which bears the same look and feel as other extension modules
> for a given platform. We may be able to provide binaries for only a few
> platforms, so the source distribution must be clean.
It is possible that the only binary distribution we need is for Windows,
simply because that's almost the only platform where it is unlikely to find
a compiler. It's also the platform where the user is most likely to be a
novice with respect to Python and to programming.
The Mac is a special case. I propose dropping the attempt to maintain a
version for pre-OSX, both because of declining demand and because we never
did succeed in making a good editing environment (couldn't make the new Idle
work there). As you may know, Apple very recently started supporting X11
itself, and it is now vastly easier to install X11 than it was a few months
ago. I haven't verified this, but I was even told that Python comes with.
This means that it should be possible to use the source-based installer on
the Mac as on other Linux/Unix platforms.
> As for the question, "Can the average non-programmer handle installing
> many packages?" IMHO, _given proper instructions_, the answer is yes. I
> honestly do not see a connection between an inability to handle
> dependancies, and a lack of programming experience.
All I can say (again) is that there are experimental data on this: it's not
a theoretical question. It is observed that smart college students in
technical fields have trouble in this area. It's not necessarily programming
experience per se, but that's the most direct way to acquire the necessary
expertise. As an instructor I have an absolute need for an extremely robust,
simple installer, mainly on Windows. In classes involving hundreds of
students I can't deal with installer difficulties among a sizable fraction
of the students in those classes. I lived through an early phase of Python
and Visual installers that were not robust and simple, and it was a minor
nightmare.
What this may mean is that whatever nearly-universal installer is available
for all platforms, we may need to offer in addition a "bundled" installer
for newcomers to Python on Windows.
There are also some very specific community issues with the Mac. It happens
in physics that many 4-year liberal arts college physics departments are
Mac-only, and these instructors are a particularly interested constituency
for the physics curriculum with which I'm involved and which involves
VPython. For that reason some special care and feeding may be warranted.
Bruce Sherwood
|
