Win32 Binary-only for 2.3.x?

**Claudio Grondi** · Jan 4 '06, 09:25 PM

Re: Win32 Binary-only for 2.3.x?

dumpingrounds@g mail.com wrote:[color=blue]
> Hi,
>
> I must be going nutty, but I can't seem to find anywhere where I can
> get just the binaries for, say, 2.3.5 for win32. I've googled high and
> low and all I come up with is installer (MSI/EXE) binaries and the
> source code. They have to be somewhere. I cant be the only person
> that doesn't want it wrapped in an installer. If I search "win32
> python binary" I get about nine thousand results pointing to Mark
> Hammond's win32 Python page which, while it looks very helpful,
> provides win32 extensions for an already installed python distribution.
>
>
> So, I give. Can someone point me to somewhere where there is a pile of
> Python 2.3 EXE and DLLs that I can happily dump somewhere on my system
> without having to install? In case it matters, this is for a WAMP-like
> project I'm developing that includes a working Trac installation.
> Hence the need for Python, and the lack of need for an installer. And
> no, I *really* don't want to compile from source.
>
> Many thanks in advance!
>[/color]
Sorry, have no idea how to get them online, but ...

an idea you have not yet excluded from beeing allowed to share with you
is to use a temporary system you install Python once on and then copy
over the files in order to get what you want (and then forget about the
temporary system). Is it really that hard to do, that it should be worth
to be provided separately?
Anyone who has Python 2.3.5 installed has the files you need on his
system, so another idea you have not yet rejected from beeing shared
with you is, that you ask around to gain access to them.

Claudio

**Thomas Heller** · Jan 4 '06, 09:35 PM

Re: Win32 Binary-only for 2.3.x?

dumpingrounds@g mail.com writes:
[color=blue]
> Hi,
>
> I must be going nutty, but I can't seem to find anywhere where I can
> get just the binaries for, say, 2.3.5 for win32. I've googled high and
> low and all I come up with is installer (MSI/EXE) binaries and the
> source code. They have to be somewhere. I cant be the only person
> that doesn't want it wrapped in an installer. If I search "win32
> python binary" I get about nine thousand results pointing to Mark
> Hammond's win32 Python page which, while it looks very helpful,
> provides win32 extensions for an already installed python distribution.
>
>
> So, I give. Can someone point me to somewhere where there is a pile of
> Python 2.3 EXE and DLLs that I can happily dump somewhere on my system
> without having to install? In case it matters, this is for a WAMP-like
> project I'm developing that includes a working Trac installation.
> Hence the need for Python, and the lack of need for an installer. And
> no, I *really* don't want to compile from source.
>
> Many thanks in advance![/color]

AFAIK the 2.3 installers use zip-compatible compression, so you should
be able to open them in winzip or whatever archive utility you like.

OTOH, you could also install/copy whatever you like/uninstall.

Thomas

**dumpingrounds@gmail.com** · Jan 4 '06, 09:35 PM

Re: Win32 Binary-only for 2.3.x?

Claudio Grondi wrote:[color=blue]
> dumpingrounds@g mail.com wrote:[color=green]
> > Hi,
> >
> > I must be going nutty, but I can't seem to find anywhere where I can
> > get just the binaries for, say, 2.3.5 for win32. I've googled high and
> > low and all I come up with is installer (MSI/EXE) binaries and the
> > source code. They have to be somewhere. I cant be the only person
> > that doesn't want it wrapped in an installer. If I search "win32
> > python binary" I get about nine thousand results pointing to Mark
> > Hammond's win32 Python page which, while it looks very helpful,
> > provides win32 extensions for an already installed python distribution.
> >
> >
> > So, I give. Can someone point me to somewhere where there is a pile of
> > Python 2.3 EXE and DLLs that I can happily dump somewhere on my system
> > without having to install? In case it matters, this is for a WAMP-like
> > project I'm developing that includes a working Trac installation.
> > Hence the need for Python, and the lack of need for an installer. And
> > no, I *really* don't want to compile from source.
> >
> > Many thanks in advance!
> >[/color]
> Sorry, have no idea how to get them online, but ...
>
> an idea you have not yet excluded from beeing allowed to share with you
> is to use a temporary system you install Python once on and then copy
> over the files in order to get what you want (and then forget about the
> temporary system). Is it really that hard to do, that it should be worth
> to be provided separately?
> Anyone who has Python 2.3.5 installed has the files you need on his
> system, so another idea you have not yet rejected from beeing shared
> with you is, that you ask around to gain access to them.[/color]

Yeah, I guess that is one route to go down. It just seems, I don't
know, hacky. I will try it though, if I can't find the binaries online
by themselves. I don't think it's a question of being "hard to do"
using the method you suggested, I just find it really odd that the only
method of delivery for win32 platform (for end users, at least) is via
an MSI.

I don't know, maybe it's just me :P

**Trent Mick** · Jan 4 '06, 09:55 PM

Re: Win32 Binary-only for 2.3.x?

[dumpingrounds@g mail.com wrote][color=blue]
> So, I give. Can someone point me to somewhere where there is a pile of
> Python 2.3 EXE and DLLs that I can happily dump somewhere on my system
> without having to install?[/color]

ftp://ftp.activestate.com/ActivePyth...win32-ix86.zip

[color=blue]
> In case it matters, this is for a WAMP-like
> project I'm developing that includes a working Trac installation.[/color]

I'm not sure it applies to your situation, but you cannot redistribute
ActivePython.
http://www.activestate.com/Products/...agreement.plex

Cheers,
Trent

--
Trent Mick
trentm@activest ate.com

**Claudio Grondi** · Jan 4 '06, 10:35 PM

Re: Win32 Binary-only for 2.3.x?

Thomas Heller wrote:[color=blue]
> dumpingrounds@g mail.com writes:
>
>[color=green]
>>Hi,
>>
>>I must be going nutty, but I can't seem to find anywhere where I can
>>get just the binaries for, say, 2.3.5 for win32. I've googled high and
>>low and all I come up with is installer (MSI/EXE) binaries and the
>>source code. They have to be somewhere. I cant be the only person
>>that doesn't want it wrapped in an installer. If I search "win32
>>python binary" I get about nine thousand results pointing to Mark
>>Hammond's win32 Python page which, while it looks very helpful,
>>provides win32 extensions for an already installed python distribution.
>>
>>
>>So, I give. Can someone point me to somewhere where there is a pile of
>>Python 2.3 EXE and DLLs that I can happily dump somewhere on my system
>>without having to install? In case it matters, this is for a WAMP-like
>>project I'm developing that includes a working Trac installation.
>>Hence the need for Python, and the lack of need for an installer. And
>>no, I *really* don't want to compile from source.
>>
>>Many thanks in advance![/color]
>
>
> AFAIK the 2.3 installers use zip-compatible compression, so you should
> be able to open them in winzip or whatever archive utility you like.
>
> OTOH, you could also install/copy whatever you like/uninstall.
>
> Thomas[/color]
Yes, it's true. At least from python-2.4.2.msi I can unpack the file
'python' and from that file any other one including the .exe and .dll
files.
If the 'python' file stored in the .msi had the ending .zip it would be
probably easier to see this directly after unpacking the .msi file.

Claudio

**Mike Meyer** · Jan 4 '06, 11:05 PM

Re: Win32 Binary-only for 2.3.x?

dumpingrounds@g mail.com writes:[color=blue]
> Yeah, I guess that is one route to go down. It just seems, I don't
> know, hacky. I will try it though, if I can't find the binaries online
> by themselves. I don't think it's a question of being "hard to do"
> using the method you suggested, I just find it really odd that the only
> method of delivery for win32 platform (for end users, at least) is via
> an MSI.[/color]

Not quite. End users can install from sources. It's just a lot more
work than using an MSI.
[color=blue]
> I don't know, maybe it's just me :P[/color]

Possibly you're the only one who is happy with prebuilt binaries and
at the same time unhappy with using an MSI?

Which leads to the question - exactly what do you dislike about
getting an MSI?

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.or g> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

**Fuzzyman** · Jan 4 '06, 11:55 PM

Re: Win32 Binary-only for 2.3.x?

dumpingrounds@g mail.com wrote:
[snip..][color=blue]
>
> So, I give. Can someone point me to somewhere where there is a pile of
> Python 2.3 EXE and DLLs that I can happily dump somewhere on my system
> without having to install? In case it matters, this is for a WAMP-like
> project I'm developing that includes a working Trac installation.
> Hence the need for Python, and the lack of need for an installer. And
> no, I *really* don't want to compile from source.
>
> Many thanks in advance![/color]

Movable Python provides a convenient way of getting (effectively)
Python binaries without needing to install Python.

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

It has a funky GUI program launcher and is integrated with SPE to make
a portable development environment that will work from a USB key.

All the Best,

Fuzzyman
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/index.shtml

**Neil Benn** · Jan 5 '06, 02:45 PM

Re: Win32 Binary-only for 2.3.x?

Mike Meyer wrote:
[color=blue]
>dumpingrounds@ gmail.com writes:
>
>[color=green]
>>Yeah, I guess that is one route to go down. It just seems, I don't
>>know, hacky. I will try it though, if I can't find the binaries online
>>by themselves. I don't think it's a question of being "hard to do"
>>using the method you suggested, I just find it really odd that the only
>>method of delivery for win32 platform (for end users, at least) is via
>>an MSI.
>>
>>[/color]
>
>Not quite. End users can install from sources. It's just a lot more
>work than using an MSI.
>
>
>[color=green]
>>I don't know, maybe it's just me :P
>>
>>[/color]
>
>Possibly you're the only one who is happy with prebuilt binaries and
>at the same time unhappy with using an MSI?
>
>Which leads to the question - exactly what do you dislike about
>getting an MSI?
>
> <mike
>
>[/color]
Hello,

For distribution, it can often be easier to simply dump the
files onto the hard drive than run an MSI in silent mode, you can run an
MSI in silent mode but it involves bit more mucking about. Running an
MSI out of silent mode is not an option, if your installer starts firing
up other windows (command prompt or otherwise) - it looks amateurish and
cheap.

Certainly installing python on a box for a developer or to
support/install an in-house app, the MSI is fine and preferable.

Cheers,

Neil

--

Neil Benn
Senior Automation Engineer
Cenix BioScience
BioInnovations Zentrum
Tatzberg 47
D-01307
Dresden
Germany

Tel : +49 (0)351 4173 154
e-mail : benn@cenix-bioscience.com
Cenix Website : http://www.cenix-bioscience.com

**Fuzzyman** · Jan 7 '06, 08:15 AM

Re: Win32 Binary-only for 2.3.x?

Out of interest, doesn't the Python binary use the registry (and
environment variables) for building sys.path ?

Won't you still have conflicting path issues if you use an alternative
binary with an existing 'normal' install ?

All the best,

Fuzzyman
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/index.shtml

**Trent Mick** · Jan 9 '06, 06:05 PM

Re: Win32 Binary-only for 2.3.x?

[Fuzzyman wrote][color=blue]
> Out of interest, doesn't the Python binary use the registry (and
> environment variables) for building sys.path ?[/color]

Yes, good point...
[color=blue]
>
> Won't you still have conflicting path issues if you use an alternative
> binary with an existing 'normal' install ?[/color]

....but it is possible to effectively disable the use of the registry by
a given pythonXY.dll -- if you know how to edit the String Table of the
DLL. Basically there is a string entry in that table that is used as
part of the registry path for registry usage.

Here is how I do it:
- open MS Visual C++ 6 (I'm sure you can do all this with VS.NET, I
just haven't done it.)
- Ctrl+O for the open file dialog
- Files of type: Executable files (.exe;.dll;.ocx )
- Open as: Resources
- browse to and open pythonXY.dll
- In the string table there is an entry with Value=1000 and Caption=X.Y
(i.e. "2.3" for python23.dll, "2.4" for python24.dll, etc.). That
"X.Y" string is what determines that part of the registry lookup path
for:
HKLM/Software/Python/PythonCore/X.Y/PythonPath
- You could change the "Caption" value to "FuzzyWuzzyWuzz aBear" to
effectively disable usage of the registry for sys.path building by
that pythonXY.dll.

Cheers,
Trent

--
Trent Mick
trentm@activest ate.com

**Thomas Heller** · Jan 9 '06, 06:15 PM

Re: Win32 Binary-only for 2.3.x?

Trent Mick <trentm@ActiveS tate.com> writes:
[color=blue]
> [Fuzzyman wrote][color=green]
>> Out of interest, doesn't the Python binary use the registry (and
>> environment variables) for building sys.path ?[/color]
>
> Yes, good point...
>[color=green]
>>
>> Won't you still have conflicting path issues if you use an alternative
>> binary with an existing 'normal' install ?[/color]
>
> ...but it is possible to effectively disable the use of the registry by
> a given pythonXY.dll -- if you know how to edit the String Table of the
> DLL. Basically there is a string entry in that table that is used as
> part of the registry path for registry usage.
>
> Here is how I do it:
> - open MS Visual C++ 6 (I'm sure you can do all this with VS.NET, I
> just haven't done it.)
> - Ctrl+O for the open file dialog
> - Files of type: Executable files (.exe;.dll;.ocx )
> - Open as: Resources
> - browse to and open pythonXY.dll
> - In the string table there is an entry with Value=1000 and Caption=X.Y
> (i.e. "2.3" for python23.dll, "2.4" for python24.dll, etc.). That
> "X.Y" string is what determines that part of the registry lookup path
> for:
> HKLM/Software/Python/PythonCore/X.Y/PythonPath
> - You could change the "Caption" value to "FuzzyWuzzyWuzz aBear" to
> effectively disable usage of the registry for sys.path building by
> that pythonXY.dll.[/color]

py2exe also does something like this in the copy of pythonXY.dll that it
creates, to avoid the resulting exe pulling in sys.path entries from the
registry.

Thomas

**Trent Mick** · Jan 9 '06, 06:55 PM

modifying DLL string table programatically (Was: Win32 Binary-onlyfor 2.3.x?)

[Thomas Heller wrote][color=blue]
> py2exe also does something like this in the copy of pythonXY.dll that it
> creates, to avoid the resulting exe pulling in sys.path entries from the
> registry.[/color]

Do you have a quick pointer to the code that does this? I wasn't easily
able to automate doing this with COM code last time I tried.

Trent

--
Trent Mick
trentm@activest ate.com

**Thomas Heller** · Jan 9 '06, 07:05 PM

Re: modifying DLL string table programatically (Was: Win32Binary-only for 2.3.x?)

Trent Mick <trentm@ActiveS tate.com> writes:
[color=blue]
> [Thomas Heller wrote][color=green]
>> py2exe also does something like this in the copy of pythonXY.dll that it
>> creates, to avoid the resulting exe pulling in sys.path entries from the
>> registry.[/color]
>
> Do you have a quick pointer to the code that does this? I wasn't easily
> able to automate doing this with COM code last time I tried.[/color]

Python\lib\site-packages\py2exe \build_exe.py, function
patch_python_dl l_winver().

The py2exe_util extension has exports add_resource, which wraps
BeginUpdateReso urce, UpdateResource, and EndUpdateResour ce, but they are
also wrapped in pywin32 somewhere. Stringtables are a little bit more
difficult that other resources, but see
py2exe\resource s\StringTables. py.

The most important thing to remember is that these functions may
silently fail if the image file to modify is readonly. Or something
like that.

Thomas

Win32 Binary-only for 2.3.x?

Win32 Binary-only for 2.3.x?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment