Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #104228 > unrolled thread

Re: Question

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Question Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 09:57 -0700
    Re: Question Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-03-07 18:09 +0000
      Re: Question mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> - 2016-03-07 18:18 +0000
        Re: Question Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-03-07 18:51 +0000
          Re: Question Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 12:29 -0700
            Re: Question Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-03-08 01:41 +0000
              Re: Question justin walters <walters.justin01@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 17:59 -0800
                Re: Question Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-03-08 10:24 +0000
                  Re: Question justin walters <walters.justin01@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 08:47 -0800
                    Re: Question Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-03-08 16:53 +0000
              Re: Question Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 10:19 -0700
                Re: Question Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-03-08 17:56 +0000
                  Re: Question Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 11:08 -0700
                    Re: Question Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-03-08 18:08 +0000
                Re: Question Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-09 10:52 +1100
                  Re: Question Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 11:13 +1100
                  Re: Question Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 18:27 -0700
                    Re: Question Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-03-09 12:28 +0000
                      Re: Question Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-09 23:01 -0500
                        Re: Question Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-03-10 11:44 +0000
                          Re: Question Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-10 08:37 -0500
                  Re: Question Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-03-09 12:52 +0000
          Re: Question Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 06:47 +1100
            Re: Question Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-03-08 01:33 +0000
          Re: Question Andrew Farrell <amfarrell@mit.edu> - 2016-03-07 14:00 -0600
          Re: Question justin walters <walters.justin01@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 11:04 -0800
      Re: Question Chris Warrick <kwpolska@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 19:22 +0100
      Re: Question Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-03-07 13:26 -0500

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#104517

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 11:44:10 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> declaimed the following:


>
>Yes, I tried the solution suggested there (copy the 'activate' script
>from an existing Unix virtualenv) and unfortunately it didn't work
>(it looked like it worked but 'pip install' still installed things in
>the system packages directory not the virtualenv).

	The main thing that popped out at me from the link was the comment
about being specific to the host system... 

	I don't intend to try replicating your conditions (I've never even used
a virtual environment, much less some other shell), but based upon your
statement about the behavior of "pip" would be looking to see if there are
OS specific parts within it -- which perhaps wouldn't know/recognize a bash
style environment variable, etc.
-- 
	Wulfraed                 Dennis Lee Bieber         AF6VN
    wlfraed@ix.netcom.com    HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#104407

On 2016-03-08, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 04:19 am, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Jon Ribbens
>> <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>>> 'virtualenv' works even less well, it just says:
>>>
>>> $ virtualenv test
>>> Using base prefix 'd:\\program files (x86)\\python35-32'
>>> New python executable in D:\Users\Jon
>>> Ribbens\Documents\Python\test\Scripts\python.exe ERROR: The executable
>>> "D:\Users\Jon Ribbens\Documents\Python\test\Scripts\python.exe" could not
>>> be run: [WinError 5] Access is denied
>> 
>> Ah, I probably never tried using it inside a user dir. On Windows I
>> typically do development in a path close to the drive root, e.g.
>> C:\dev.
>
> Am I missing something? It looks to me like a straight forward permissions
> error? I don't know how difficult that is to solve on Windows, but I don't
> think it has anything to do with the path itself, only the permissions of
> the path.

I don't see how it could be a "straight forward permissions error".
The file it is saying "Access Denied" on is a file that was just
created by virtualenv, so if there is something wrong with its
permissions then that is a bug in virtualenv. Plus, there isn't
anything wrong with its permissions because if I run
test/Scripts/python.exe from the command line it works fine.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#104249

On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 5:51 AM, Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
> I must say that Python on Windows was a very poor experience indeed,
> "virtualenv" does not work and "venv" refuses to create the 'activate'
> shell script so does not work either (and pygame doesn't work, but
> that's presumably not Python's fault).

To be quite frank, Python on Windows has had a *lot* of problems, and
most of them have been the fault of Windows. Starting with Python 3.5,
there've been some big packaging changes that ought to make Windows
Python a bit easier to use; however, there've been some teething
troubles, and there are still some ways in which setting up a
properly-working Python is a pain.

So you have a few choices:

1) Stick with the vanilla Python on the vanilla Windows. It's not
horrendous, but there will be rough edges. Report those rough edges,
and hopefully they can be fixed in time for 3.6 (or even 3.5.2).

2) Use a different Python distribution, eg Anaconda or ActiveState.
Some of them cost money; when you pay money for open source software,
what you're getting is a level of support, which will mean you can
complain to them when something doesn't work, and insist that they fix
it. This may or may not give you better results than option 1.

3) Use standard Python, and ditch Windows. This is what I do. :)

4) Keep using Windows, but do your Python work in a virtual machine.
Either full-on virtualization software like VirtualBox or VMWare, or
something that gives you a web browser interface to a VM hosted in the
cloud (eg Cloud 9 or Nitrous).

Personally, I don't see any reason to run "real Windows" on any of my
systems. Windows programs get run under Wine or VirtualBox, never
directly on the hardware. But if your needs are different, there are
plenty of ways to improve your Windows+Python setup; just be patient,
and accept that you might have a bit of extra work to do.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#104299

On 2016-03-07, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
> 3) Use standard Python, and ditch Windows. This is what I do. :)

This is also what I do nearly all of the time, but for PyWeek I needed
a computer running Python that actually had a monitor attached ;-)

Although to be fair, Python under Ubuntu Server has for a long time
been a very poor experience too, what with the pip problem.

(I can't remember what the error message is but if you do
'sudo apt-get install python python-pip' and then use pip to upgrade
either pip or requests, it breaks pip completely and irreversibly,
you have to manually re-install it using get-pip.py. It's probably
this one:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/python-pip/+bug/1306991)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#104250

I'm going to echo Chris Angelo's suggestion #2 to use a python
distribution. This page <https://www.continuum.io/downloads> has the links
to download Anaconda. It is free and if you need to download libraries
which require compiled external code like numpy you can just run `conda
install numpy`.

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 5:51 AM, Jon Ribbens
> <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
> > I must say that Python on Windows was a very poor experience indeed,
> > "virtualenv" does not work and "venv" refuses to create the 'activate'
> > shell script so does not work either (and pygame doesn't work, but
> > that's presumably not Python's fault).
>
> To be quite frank, Python on Windows has had a *lot* of problems, and
> most of them have been the fault of Windows. Starting with Python 3.5,
> there've been some big packaging changes that ought to make Windows
> Python a bit easier to use; however, there've been some teething
> troubles, and there are still some ways in which setting up a
> properly-working Python is a pain.
>
> So you have a few choices:
>
> 1) Stick with the vanilla Python on the vanilla Windows. It's not
> horrendous, but there will be rough edges. Report those rough edges,
> and hopefully they can be fixed in time for 3.6 (or even 3.5.2).
>
> 2) Use a different Python distribution, eg Anaconda or ActiveState.
> Some of them cost money; when you pay money for open source software,
> what you're getting is a level of support, which will mean you can
> complain to them when something doesn't work, and insist that they fix
> it. This may or may not give you better results than option 1.
>
> 3) Use standard Python, and ditch Windows. This is what I do. :)
>
> 4) Keep using Windows, but do your Python work in a virtual machine.
> Either full-on virtualization software like VirtualBox or VMWare, or
> something that gives you a web browser interface to a VM hosted in the
> cloud (eg Cloud 9 or Nitrous).
>
> Personally, I don't see any reason to run "real Windows" on any of my
> systems. Windows programs get run under Wine or VirtualBox, never
> directly on the hardware. But if your needs are different, there are
> plenty of ways to improve your Windows+Python setup; just be patient,
> and accept that you might have a bit of extra work to do.
>
> ChrisA
> --
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#104254

Unfortunately, it's difficult for the core devs to know every hardware and
os combination there is. Maybe you could submit a bug report?
On Mar 7, 2016 10:56 AM, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:

> On 2016-03-07, mm0fmf <none@invalid.com> wrote:
> > On 07/03/2016 18:09, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> >> It only appears to have downloads for 32-bit, or 64-bit AMD processors,
> >> not 64-bit Intel processors.
> >
> > You didn't read the bit that says
> >
> > "The binaries for AMD64 will also work on processors that implement the
> > Intel 64 architecture. (Also known as the "x64" architecture, and
> > formerly known as both "EM64T" and "x86-64".) "
>
> You are quite correct that I did not read the whole of the
> ridiculously-long and badly-organised download page.
>
> I would strongly suggest that, at the very least, the 'Description'
> for the x86-64 files should say "for all 64-bit PCs (except Itanium*)"
> with the '*' linking to a footnote that explains how to tell if you
> have one of those.
>
> I must say that Python on Windows was a very poor experience indeed,
> "virtualenv" does not work and "venv" refuses to create the 'activate'
> shell script so does not work either (and pygame doesn't work, but
> that's presumably not Python's fault).
> --
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#104241

On 7 March 2016 at 19:09, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
> On 2016-03-07, Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Ben Morales <grupopetra2010@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I am trying to download Python but I have windows 10 and I do not see a 64
>>> bit download for my operating system. Do you have a 64 bit for windows?
>>
>> What page are you looking at?
>> https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-351/ has downloads for
>> both Windows x86 and Windows x86-64.
>
> It only appears to have downloads for 32-bit, or 64-bit AMD processors,
> not 64-bit Intel processors.
> --
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Modern Intel processors use the amd64 (aka x86_64) architecture.
Intel’s Itanium architecture (IA-64) never really took off, and was
not supported by the consumer versions of Windows (other than XP x64).

(Not to mention 32-bit processors are sometimes called i386…i686,
where the i stands for Intel, and those processors were also
manufactured by AMD and others)

-- 
Chris Warrick <https://chriswarrick.com/>
PGP: 5EAAEA16

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#104242

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016, at 13:09, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> It only appears to have downloads for 32-bit, or 64-bit AMD processors,
> not 64-bit Intel processors.

Current 64-bit processors produced by Intel use the "AMD64"
architecture, not the Intel IA-64 (Itanium) architecture.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web