Python Light Revisted?

[Ramza Brown]

This is kind of funny, I posted earlier about a small, light python
distro. The thing is, I did it in an hour or so, but amazingly, I got
responses from everywhere asking for support on how to do this. To be
honest, I don't have the time to investigate it more. My point, there
seems to be a lot of interest for a lightweight python app, but no real
resources on how to do it?

The goal, build python(mainly for win32) so that the ENTIRE install is
maybe less than 5MBs and includes possibly a GUI library, possibly
TwistedMatrix, possibly install from just unzipping an archive like
applications such as Eclipse.

So, my question, has anybody done this similar to what I did? I can
show you how I did it, but it was so quick, I didnt really think about
what libraries I included.

There are mini linuxes out there, I suggest mini pythons.

Why? For example, I don't need an XML-RPC library, or zip library, or
the other libraries.

http://newspiritcompany.com/blog/article/167/python-lightweight-at-2mb-for-win32

--
Ramza from Atlanta

http://www.newspiritcompany.com

[Ramza Brown]

Re: Python Light Revisted?

Ramza Brown wrote:[color=blue]
> This is kind of funny, I posted earlier about a small, light python
> distro. The thing is, I did it in an hour or so, but amazingly, I got
> responses from everywhere asking for support on how to do this. To be
> honest, I don't have the time to investigate it more. My point, there
> seems to be a lot of interest for a lightweight python app, but no real
> resources on how to do it?
>
> The goal, build python(mainly for win32) so that the ENTIRE install is
> maybe less than 5MBs and includes possibly a GUI library, possibly
> TwistedMatrix, possibly install from just unzipping an archive like
> applications such as Eclipse.
>
> So, my question, has anybody done this similar to what I did? I can
> show you how I did it, but it was so quick, I didnt really think about
> what libraries I included.
>
> There are mini linuxes out there, I suggest mini pythons.
>
> Why? For example, I don't need an XML-RPC library, or zip library, or
> the other libraries.
>
> http://newspiritcompany.com/blog/art...-2mb-for-win32
>
>[/color]


Or, maybe this is so easy, it doesnt deserve even mentioning. I found
it difficult and I still haven't tested it fully.

--
Ramza from Atlanta

http://www.newspiritcompany.com

[Steve M]

Re: Python Light Revisted?

I agree with you in part and disagree in part.

I don't see the point to making the distribution any smaller. 10MB for
the installer from python.org, 16MB for ActiveState .exe installer. How
is 5MB "lightweigh t" while 10MB isn't? The Windows XP version of Java
at java.com is 16+ MB, and the .NET framework is, well, I don't know
how big, but I doubt it's much less than 10MB.

Also I think it's a terrible idea to distribute without pieces of the
standard library if the distribution is meant to be developed against
for arbitrary applications. (If you just want a slimmed down Python for
one specific application, use py2exe - I think it only includes
whatever gets imported for your program to run.) And excluding zip
while including Twisted? I don't get it. Besides, how do you know
Twisted doesn't import XML-RPC? I could see an enlarged Python that
includes Twisted along with the standard library, and in fact
ActiveState's includes win32 stuff. There's another such
mega-distribution around, the name of which escapes me at the moment.
But removing zip from the standard library so you can save 20kb seems
foolish. (Again, unless it is for one specific application, in which
case py2exe should do the trick, although I could be wrong about that
since I've never used it.)

Now, what I do agree with is a Python that can be run from a folder
without having to be installed on the system. That could have lots of
benefits, if the details with pythonpath and whatever could be sorted
out. For example I haven't upgraded to 2.4 yet because I have 20
different packages (e.g. SOAPpy, ZODB, whatever) installed on WinXP,
many of which required me selecting my 2.3 installation when I
installed them. I have no idea what will happen to all those if I run
the ActiveState installer for 2.4. I seem even to remember reading that
I have to un-install 2.3 before installing 2.4. I don't want to
re-install those 20 packages. Anyway I haven't had time to research it
and it isn't pressing, even though I'd like to start trying decorators
and generator expressions.

[Ramza Brown]

Re: Python Light Revisted?

Steve M wrote:[color=blue]
> I agree with you in part and disagree in part.
>
> I don't see the point to making the distribution any smaller. 10MB for
> the installer from python.org, 16MB for ActiveState .exe installer. How
> is 5MB "lightweigh t" while 10MB isn't? The Windows XP version of Java
> at java.com is 16+ MB, and the .NET framework is, well, I don't know
> how big, but I doubt it's much less than 10MB.
>
> Also I think it's a terrible idea to distribute without pieces of the
> standard library if the distribution is meant to be developed against
> for arbitrary applications. (If you just want a slimmed down Python for
> one specific application, use py2exe - I think it only includes
> whatever gets imported for your program to run.) And excluding zip
> while including Twisted? I don't get it. Besides, how do you know
> Twisted doesn't import XML-RPC? I could see an enlarged Python that
> includes Twisted along with the standard library, and in fact
> ActiveState's includes win32 stuff. There's another such
> mega-distribution around, the name of which escapes me at the moment.
> But removing zip from the standard library so you can save 20kb seems
> foolish. (Again, unless it is for one specific application, in which
> case py2exe should do the trick, although I could be wrong about that
> since I've never used it.)
>
> Now, what I do agree with is a Python that can be run from a folder
> without having to be installed on the system. That could have lots of
> benefits, if the details with pythonpath and whatever could be sorted
> out. For example I haven't upgraded to 2.4 yet because I have 20
> different packages (e.g. SOAPpy, ZODB, whatever) installed on WinXP,
> many of which required me selecting my 2.3 installation when I
> installed them. I have no idea what will happen to all those if I run
> the ActiveState installer for 2.4. I seem even to remember reading that
> I have to un-install 2.3 before installing 2.4. I don't want to
> re-install those 20 packages. Anyway I haven't had time to research it
> and it isn't pressing, even though I'd like to start trying decorators
> and generator expressions.
>[/color]

I see your concern. But, I am talking about, for example I have 70MB in
my Python directory. I don't remember what the download size was. I
know that can be reduced. 5MB completely unzipped. Plus, If the python
setup is light enough, have a complete environment away from the 'main'
90MB environment, one that doesnt manipulate registry settings and whatnot.

--
Ramza from Atlanta

http://www.newspiritcompany.com

[Ramza Brown]

Re: Python Light Revisted?

Steve M wrote:[color=blue]
> I agree with you in part and disagree in part.
>
> I don't see the point to making the distribution any smaller. 10MB for
> the installer from python.org, 16MB for ActiveState .exe installer. How
> is 5MB "lightweigh t" while 10MB isn't? The Windows XP version of Java
> at java.com is 16+ MB, and the .NET framework is, well, I don't know
> how big, but I doubt it's much less than 10MB.
>
> Also I think it's a terrible idea to distribute without pieces of the
> standard library if the distribution is meant to be developed against
> for arbitrary applications. (If you just want a slimmed down Python for
> one specific application, use py2exe - I think it only includes
> whatever gets imported for your program to run.) And excluding zip
> while including Twisted? I don't get it. Besides, how do you know
> Twisted doesn't import XML-RPC? I could see an enlarged Python that
> includes Twisted along with the standard library, and in fact
> ActiveState's includes win32 stuff. There's another such
> mega-distribution around, the name of which escapes me at the moment.
> But removing zip from the standard library so you can save 20kb seems
> foolish. (Again, unless it is for one specific application, in which
> case py2exe should do the trick, although I could be wrong about that
> since I've never used it.)
>
> Now, what I do agree with is a Python that can be run from a folder
> without having to be installed on the system. That could have lots of
> benefits, if the details with pythonpath and whatever could be sorted
> out. For example I haven't upgraded to 2.4 yet because I have 20
> different packages (e.g. SOAPpy, ZODB, whatever) installed on WinXP,
> many of which required me selecting my 2.3 installation when I
> installed them. I have no idea what will happen to all those if I run
> the ActiveState installer for 2.4. I seem even to remember reading that
> I have to un-install 2.3 before installing 2.4. I don't want to
> re-install those 20 packages. Anyway I haven't had time to research it
> and it isn't pressing, even though I'd like to start trying decorators
> and generator expressions.
>[/color]
Also, py2exe will work '100%' without a host python install. I have
never used it. I have my doubts though?

--
Ramza from Atlanta

http://www.newspiritcompany.com

[Max]

Re: Python Light Revisted?

Steve M wrote:[color=blue]
> I agree with you in part and disagree in part.
>
> I don't see the point to making the distribution any smaller. 10MB for
> the installer from python.org, 16MB for ActiveState .exe installer. How
> is 5MB "lightweigh t" while 10MB isn't? The Windows XP version of Java
> at java.com is 16+ MB, and the .NET framework is, well, I don't know
> how big, but I doubt it's much less than 10MB.
>[/color]

AFAIR, it's closer to 50MB.

--Max

[Steve Holden]

Re: Python Light Revisted?

Steve M wrote:[color=blue]
> I agree with you in part and disagree in part.
>
> I don't see the point to making the distribution any smaller. 10MB for
> the installer from python.org, 16MB for ActiveState .exe installer. How
> is 5MB "lightweigh t" while 10MB isn't? The Windows XP version of Java
> at java.com is 16+ MB, and the .NET framework is, well, I don't know
> how big, but I doubt it's much less than 10MB.
>[/color]
I really don't think that it's worth trying to compress the standard
distribution any further, given that it isn't really bloatware. I can
see the point for embedded systems and the like, but for generic PC use
there isn't really a problem.
[color=blue]
> Also I think it's a terrible idea to distribute without pieces of the
> standard library if the distribution is meant to be developed against
> for arbitrary applications. (If you just want a slimmed down Python for
> one specific application, use py2exe - I think it only includes
> whatever gets imported for your program to run.) And excluding zip
> while including Twisted? I don't get it. Besides, how do you know
> Twisted doesn't import XML-RPC? I could see an enlarged Python that
> includes Twisted along with the standard library, and in fact
> ActiveState's includes win32 stuff. There's another such
> mega-distribution around, the name of which escapes me at the moment.
> But removing zip from the standard library so you can save 20kb seems
> foolish. (Again, unless it is for one specific application, in which
> case py2exe should do the trick, although I could be wrong about that
> since I've never used it.)
>
> Now, what I do agree with is a Python that can be run from a folder
> without having to be installed on the system. That could have lots of
> benefits, if the details with pythonpath and whatever could be sorted
> out. For example I haven't upgraded to 2.4 yet because I have 20
> different packages (e.g. SOAPpy, ZODB, whatever) installed on WinXP,
> many of which required me selecting my 2.3 installation when I
> installed them. I have no idea what will happen to all those if I run
> the ActiveState installer for 2.4. I seem even to remember reading that
> I have to un-install 2.3 before installing 2.4. I don't want to
> re-install those 20 packages. Anyway I haven't had time to research it
> and it isn't pressing, even though I'd like to start trying decorators
> and generator expressions.
>[/color]
Someone recently produced a distribution capable of running from a CD
and designed to make it easy to use Python on machines where it wasn't
actually installed. That might be a useful starting point too, but I
can't find the right incantation to get Google to bring it up.

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/

[skip@pobox.com]

Re: Python Light Revisted?


Ramza> The goal, build python(mainly for win32) so that the ENTIRE
Ramza> install is maybe less than 5MBs and includes possibly a GUI
Ramza> library, possibly TwistedMatrix, possibly install from just
Ramza> unzipping an archive like applications such as Eclipse.

...

Ramza> Why? For example, I don't need an XML-RPC library, or zip
Ramza> library, or the other libraries.

Let's suppose I decided to take your bait and build a python-lite
distribution (fyi, I'm not biting). How would I know what to remove and
what to retain? Some choices would be simple. If I was targeting Win32 I
could clearly leave out Mac- or Unix-Specific stuff. I could probably
dispense with the docs on the premise that you could read them online. How
would I decide whether to keep or toss xmlrpclib or zipfile? If I keep
xmlrpclib should I also keep SimpleXMLRPCSer ver? What about unicodedata
(it's a biggie)?

What about compatibility? If someone installs the python-lite distro then
downloads, let's say, Tailor, a version control converter. What are the
chances that it will croak with an ImportError? Put another way, are you
really willing to trade off a few megs of disk space against almost certain
breakage at some point in the near future?

I can understand that distributions for some platforms (PalmOS, OS/2, Amiga,
Jython) might contain fewer modules simply because not everything has been
ported to them, but given the cost of disk space today I don't understand
why a distribution for a mainstream platform should be hobbled.

Skip

[Bryan]

Re: Python Light Revisted?

[color=blue]
> Someone recently produced a distribution capable of running from a CD
> and designed to make it easy to use Python on machines where it wasn't
> actually installed. That might be a useful starting point too, but I
> can't find the right incantation to get Google to bring it up.
>
> regards
> Steve[/color]

steve,

are you thinking about moveable python?

http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/movpy/

bryan

[Steve Holden]

Re: Python Light Revisted?

Bryan wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
>>Someone recently produced a distribution capable of running from a CD
>>and designed to make it easy to use Python on machines where it wasn't
>>actually installed. That might be a useful starting point too, but I
>>can't find the right incantation to get Google to bring it up.
>>
>>regards
>> Steve[/color]
>
>
> steve,
>
> are you thinking about moveable python?
>
> http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/movpy/
>[/color]
The very one, thanks.

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/

[Tim Hoffman]

Re: Python Light Revisted?

Ramza Brown wrote:[color=blue]
> Steve M wrote:
>[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>[/color]
> Also, py2exe will work '100%' without a host python install. I have
> never used it. I have my doubts though?
>[/color]

Yes it sure does. I have distributed at least 3 different standalone
python programs using py2exe and I can absolutely garuntee that the
people running them do not have a seperate python install.

T

[Robin Becker]

Re: Python Light Revisted?

Steve Holden wrote:[color=blue]
> Bryan wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>Someone recently produced a distribution capable of running from a CD
>>>and designed to make it easy to use Python on machines where it wasn't
>>>actually installed. That might be a useful starting point too, but I
>>>can't find the right incantation to get Google to bring it up.
>>>
>>>regards
>>> Steve[/color]
>>
>>
>>steve,
>>
>>are you thinking about moveable python?
>>
>>http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/movpy/
>>[/color]
>
> The very one, thanks.
>
> regards
> Steve[/color]

I have just used the NSIS + py2exe magic detailed at
http://starship.python.net/crew/thel...FileExecutable to create
a single exe tkinter + twisted app.

The whole thing took about 3 days to build and deploy to testing of which about
one day was figuring out how the NSIS + py2exe stuff worked. I think the nsis
script needed a minor tweak to do exactly what we wanted.

--
Robin Becker

[Fuzzyman]

Re: Python Light Revisted?


Steve M wrote:[color=blue]
> I agree with you in part and disagree in part.
>[/color]
[snip..][color=blue]
>
> Now, what I do agree with is a Python that can be run from a folder
> without having to be installed on the system. That could have lots of
> benefits, if the details with pythonpath and whatever could be sorted
> out. For example I haven't upgraded to 2.4 yet because I have 20[/color]

You mean like Movable Python ? *grin* (Windoze only though I'm afraid)

http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/movpy

[color=blue]
> different packages (e.g. SOAPpy, ZODB, whatever) installed on WinXP,
> many of which required me selecting my 2.3 installation when I
> installed them. I have no idea what will happen to all those if I run
> the ActiveState installer for 2.4. I seem even to remember reading that
> I have to un-install 2.3 before installing 2.4. I don't want to
> re-install those 20 packages. Anyway I haven't had time to research it
> and it isn't pressing, even though I'd like to start trying decorators
> and generator expressions.[/color]

I faced similar issues - in the end it wasn't such a pain though.

http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/articles/upgrading_python.shtml

Just make a list of the modules you want to keep and fetch the Python
2.4 installers before making the switch. Gives you a nice opportunity
to clean up your 'site-packages' folder.

Regards,

Fuzzyman

http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python

[Berlin Brown]

Re: Python Light Revisted?

"Let's suppose I decided to take your bait and build a python-lite
distribution (fyi, I'm not biting). "

Of course not, that is the point, everybody is always right. What I
want is the option to distribute something to light my users. I have
done with java, lisp and other languages. But. I can't figure out the
best approach for Python. And, with python being the only
implementation, that is another story?

I also don't want to use their messed up Python install that may or may
not work. It is the microsoft registry issue, meaning; I don't like
the concept of one source for screws up. If a user screws up their
Python install, and I submit an application to them and now my
application is screwed up, what can I do? Control is a good thing. I
was considering something light, mainly for the application only, user
clicks start and they are off.


"What about compatibility? If someone installs the python-lite distro
then
downloads, let's say, Tailor, a version control converter. What are
the
chances that it will croak with an ImportError? Put another way, are
you
really willing to trade off a few megs of disk space against almost
certain
breakage at some point in the near future?"

It wont get that complex. Python-lite is designed for each
application. It is lite so you won't lose that much diskspace.

"I can understand that distributions for some platforms (PalmOS, OS/2,
Amiga,
Jython) might contain fewer modules simply because not everything has
been
ported to them, but given the cost of disk space today I don't
understand
why a distribution for a mainstream platform should be hobbled. "

I use jython works great, because I can distribute the light version.
The only thing that has to work is java and I distribute the
interpreter to all of my apps as the jython.jar library.