RetroSearch Browse

Thu Oct 6 17:54:21 CEST 2011 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-October/113893.html

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:46, Éric Araujo <merwok at netwok.org> wrote:
> Le 06/10/2011 17:31, Barry Warsaw a écrit :
>> I agree we can't use virtualenv, and shouldn't use virtualize.  I'm afraid
>> that picking something cute might make it harder to discover.  `pythonv` or
>> `cpythonv` seem like good choices to me.  Maybe the former, so we could
>> potentially have jythonv, etc.
>
> I’m not sure we would.  The feature is two-fold:
> - changes to getpath.c, site.py and other usual suspects so that CPython
> supports being run in an isolated environment;
> - a new module used to create isolated environments.
>
> The first part is implemented in CPython; the second part needs a module
> name to replace virtualenv.  python -m pythonv doesn’t seem right.
>
> python -m makeenv?
> python -m workon? (idea from virtualenvwrapper)
> python -m nest?

develop? devenv?

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-October/113893.html below:

[Python-Dev] Status of the built-in virtualenv functionality in 3.3