Add an `install.py` to packs

[rubik]

So users can install packed packages!

[fdev31]

+1 ;)

About packs, in zicbee, I totally remove the "package-version" folders since I base the final egg on other's egg content. Instead of setting a pythonpath of : foo.egg/something-version we can just foo.egg and have the packages at the root of the egg... it will change installation a lot, so we have to chose:

Current way

• fetch pyg
• unpack the egg containing sources
• install each package from sources, in correct order

Bdist_Egg way

• copy the egg to site packages
• fix some .pth file
• copy executables without the "run_" prefix

What process do you prefer ?

[rubik]

It's interesting, but where do we store every package's EGG-INFO dir? :)

[fdev31]

We don't store each of them, we merge it more or less like the current way....

[rubik]

Ok, we lose single metadata in favour of simplicity! That's fair... So, basically the new Pyg pack would look like this:

pyg-0.7.1
  |
  |- run_pyg.py
  |- run_pyg2.7.py
  |- run_easy_install.py
  |- pyg.egg
       |
       |- EGG-INFO
       |     |- spec
       |     |- etc.
       |- pyg
       |- pkgtools
       |- argh
       |- setuptools

It shouldn't be too difficult to change the packing process... :)

[rubik]

What do you think?

[rubik]

It is simpler than I thought, we could allow both modes...

EDIT: I'm in a hurry, executables are wrong now..

[fdev31]

Both modes are nice, we will settle on a peculiar one later :)

[rubik]

This is tough! :) We have to know where the bin directory is, to place scripts.

[rubik]

I don't know whether is better to download pyg or not. We have to choose:

with Pyg Pack

• We can add a --pack option to the install command so we can install packs easily
• in the install.py file we download Pyg pack and execute it.

in addition to that, in install.py file we can verify whether Pyg is installed or not before downloading it.

without Pyg Pack

• we have to copy some code from locations.py (bin path, site-packages) and core.py (egg install) and from other files.

I don't know what is better, what do you think?

[fdev31]

adding --pack to install command (or auto-detection of a pack file) is a good idea to me but I'm not sure to understand the install.py stuff that well, I think the pack should be autonomous to install itself as well ... we should chat about it in live, it will be easier probably, but I don't know when I'll get some free time :(

[rubik]

Ok, that's a nice idea! But for the pack to be autonomus, it has to know where the bin directory is and how to install eggs. And there is another problem: to be setuptools compliant it has to install egg-info as well and we don't have them in the pack...

[fdev31]

Hehe, In case it's hard to "meet" synchronously, we can start a discussion in the wiki, don't you think ? We will try to think about alternatives and then chose the less constraining one....

2011/8/12 rubik < [email protected]>

Ok, that's a nice idea! But for the pack to be autonomus, it has to know where the bin directory is and how to install eggs. And there is another problem: to be setuptools compliant it has to install egg-info as well and we don't have them in the pack...

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rubik/pyg/issues/101#issuecomment-1791327

[rubik]

Ok, nice idea! :)

[rubik]

Now it should be possible (and quite easy) to write an install.py file.