When installing EPD's Python distribution, the installer creates an IPython profile with the following entry in ~/.ipython/profile_default/ipython_config.py:
# c.TerminalIPythonApp.extensions = ['kernmagic']
As discussed in this thread, this can cause errors if someone later wants to use a different IPython distribution (e.g. conda), since this extension isn't installed by default.
With this, my question is what exactly is kernmagic? I read that it adds some additional magics to IPython, but what are they?
Less importantly, assuming that I don't use EPD but I want to use this extension, besides the manual installation through hg clone and python setup.py build, how can I install it using pip?
It's a collection of %magics that I wrote for myself. The documentation for all of the magics that are added can be found here. Though I was not the individual who added by default to older versions of EPD, I apologize for the confusion. Yes, it is currently only available via the checkout; I have not made an official release of it.
Related
I am new to Python having come from a proprietary compiled language (Xojo) that produces self-contained executables.
I understand that Python is an interpreted language. I understand that it requires an interpreter (let’s stick with CPython) and presumably it requires a number of accessory frameworks/C libraries in order to run. What I don’t understand is why is it so hard to create a folder containing the interpreter and all required files and libraries and simply bundle these up with my script to distribute.
I have discovered that there are a bunch of tools that attempt to do this (py2app, cx_freeze, etc) but many of them seem either broken, not maintained or really buggy.
I guess my question is: is there any documentation that describes the exact things I need to bundle with a “Hello World” script to get it running? This seems to be a really straightforward problem to solve but it hasn’t been (which suggests that it is far more complex than I appreciate).
My understanding is that PyInstaller works fine for making a single exe for distribution. But barring packaging tools like that, in general, there isn't an obvious "bare minimum"; the modules don't have documented dependencies, so it's usually best to ship the whole standard library.
Typically, if you need a redistributable version, you use the embedded Python zip redistributable, shipping Python alongside your main application.
The exact list of files/libraries depends on how the python interpreter is built. In windows for example, you can obtain CPython binaries built from Visual Studio, Cygwin and Mingw-w64. They have different dependency of cause. In Linux distributions, python is normally installed by default.
Below is the list of .dll and .exe files that you can find in the official CPython release for windows.
libcrypto-1_1-x64.dll python.exe python37.dll sqlite3.dll
libssl-1_1-x64.dll pythonw.exe python3.dll vcruntime140.dll
The total size of this ZIP file release is only 6.7 MB. So it would be easy to bundle it in your main executable. You can use whatever bundler at hand, not necessary those designed for python. Quoting from the documentation here:
extracting the embedded distribution to a subdirectory of the application installation is sufficient to provide a loadable Python interpreter.
I feel the absolute best way to experience Python for beginners in thonny and an esp32.
A very good way to get started with python is to use Anaconda https://www.anaconda.com/distribution/#download-section - this distribution contains the CPython interpreter and the most commonly used packages. For quite a while you will get along without installing more packages.
To be able to make a simple distributable piece of code just include a requirements.txt along with your code which should list down the packages (and versions) you are using in your code.
More on that here : https://www.idiotinside.com/2015/05/10/python-auto-generate-requirements-txt/
pip freeze generates a superset of all packages in your running environment so you would ideally go with the second smarter option in the link : pipreqs
So, in short along with your code just an additional requirements.txt should be fine using which people can install all required packages as
pip install -r requirements.txt
and they are good to go to run your code.
For advanced scenarios you might want to look up creating virtual environments using conda.
What is a conda environment?
https://docs.conda.io/projects/conda/en/latest/user-guide/concepts.html#conda-environments
How to create/manage a conda environment
https://docs.conda.io/projects/conda/en/latest/user-guide/tasks/manage-environments.html
All the best in your Python journey!
I have read a bunch of posts here and on Google, but my question is far more basic than the answers: If Python(2.7) came pre-installed on my MacBook Pro (High Sierra), can I just do sudo easy_install pip (as suggested) from the command line--withOUT causing issues? I have a vague understanding of global/local installations, and my understanding is certain Python installations aren't compatible with local/global kernel installations. I hope I am getting the terminology right, but I saw several warnings about installing pip for "a homebrew based python installation", but I am not sure whether Python on my laptop is installed via homebrew (nor how to find out).
My question came about because I wanted to install the Hydrogen package to use in Atom, the text editor (to help me learn Python). I finally succeeded in installing Hydrogen, but got stumped by the missing kernels (not sure which ones I need, so I am willing to install them all). But I can't seem to install the kernels without pip. So here I am.
My apologies for asking such a basic question--and thanks!
The rule of thumb is: If your operating system has a package manager, use it.
Unfortunately, MacOS is the only UNIX-like operating system that does not come with a decent package managment system.
(There is the app store, but that is useless for a lot open source software for several different reasons. It's also a walled garden.)
You have several choices (in descreasing suitability):
Use one of the package managers available for MacOS. Which one is the best choice for you depends on all the packages you need being available.
Use a Python distribution. I've used Anaconda on ms-windows, and that has saved me a lot of hassle. A good choice if you are only looking for Python and related libraries.
Build everything yourself. This can be very time-consuming and is a duplication of effort. You will learn a lot though.
I would second Piinthesky's comment that you install Python 3.6. Python 2.7 is now a legacy version.
Well although I am no Mac expert I've given it a shot anyway:
Yes you could but do you really want to risk it (or even do it)?
Mac-OS must rely on Python to fulfill something in the OS otherwise it would not come inbuilt. This means two things:
The Python installation will be minimal. By that I mean it will have things missing (any large library for a start). They will do this mainly to cut down on the OS size. Therefore you will not have the full Python library and in the long term you may end up missing out.
Second if anything went wrong (IE you broke your installation or even modified it -yep I've done this in Linux and have ended up factory resetting) then you may cause something to stop working and may need to factory reset or perform some other drastic action on your OS. A separate installation would prevent your from risking this. This is very useful because there comes a time when you may decide to update certain modules with pip and find it can't or it updates something that you shouldn't be messing with.
Yes it's possible you may run into compatibility problems but I think it's most widely accepted that you do not use the inbuilt one as it needs to remain unchanged if the OS is to use it correctly. Messing with it increases the chances of it breaking.
Conclusion: So even though installing modules with pip (and getting pip) can be done with the inbuilt Python it comes down whether you want to risk harming your OS. I strongly suggest you get a separate installation and leave the inbuilt one as it is. Second as you mentioned you will find that the inbuilt versions are never up-to-date or are built were they are not really compatible with standard libraries (expect things like the missing runtime libraries all the time) , just another reason to stay clear of them.
This is how I solved this problem-for those newbies who just want Hydrogen to work:
Installed Python 3 (instead of messing around with Python 2.7 and pip).
Followed instructions here (https://packaging.python.org/tutorials/installing-packages/#ensure-you-can-run-pip-from-the-command-line) for 'get-pip.py'.
In Atom, cmd+shift+p to bring up the packages menu, clicked on 'Hydrogen Run', which gave me the errors again.
Copied the code from the warnings and installed the kernels needed (via the command line).
Hydrogen is now working.
Thanks for all the tips!
Some time ago when i wanted to install a package using Conda in Anaconda python distribution i saw that Conda wants to update the python package from 2.7.10-0 to 2.7.10-1. It's the same python version (2.7.10 in this case).
Checking the channel's content I see there are multiple packages for the same python version:
python-2.7.10-0.tar.bz2 18.3M
python-2.7.10-1.tar.bz2 16.7M
python-2.7.10-3.tar.bz2 16.7M
...
So what is the difference between these builds and how can i prevent them to be updated?
What you're seeing there are build numbers.
They're usually used to fix a build of the same version of a package.
For example, imagine you have built this python version accidentally as a pydebug build. However, that's not what you want since it will lead to crashes in users of this package if they're not away that this is a pydebug build.
In this case you should rebuild the package (correctly this time), increment the build number and re-upload it.
So what is the difference between these builds?
You can't easily know the difference, unless Continuum provides a changelog for each build of python they provide (which I sincerely doubt).
To install a package with a specific build number you could do: conda install "python=2.7.10 0". The 0 means the build number.
I don't know if this syntax is officially supported, however it worked the last time I used it.
how can i prevent them to be updated?
First I would have to know what is your workflow.
If you're asking about the command-line, I don't think that is possible.
If you're asking about using environment.yml files you can pin a package to a specific version (including the build number) using a similar syntax of conda install.
On Tiger, I used a custom python installation to evaluate newer versions and I did not have any problems with that*. Now Snow Leopard is a little more up-to-date and by default ships with
$ ls /System/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/
2.3 2.5 2.6 #Current
What could be considered best practice? Using the python shipped with Mac OS X or a custom compiled version in, say $HOME.
Are there any advantages/disadvantages using the one option over the other?
My setup was fairly simple so far and looked like this: Custom compiled Python in $HOME and a $PATH that would look into $HOME/bin first, and subsequently would use my private Python version. Also $PYTHONPATH pointed to this local installation. This way, I did not need to sudo–install packages - virtualenv took care of the rest. Note: I liked this setup, so I'm just curious and thought I inquire the hive mind.
I guess it depends on your needs. Personally, I use the latest version for any series (2.5, 2.6, etc.) from MacPorts.
I compile it myself because this gives me the newest 64-bit version. The official OS X builds seem to be 32-bit only. I dropped MacPorts several months ago because its dependency system and its often outdated packages were too annoying.
The problem with using the Python version that's shipped with your OS is that it may contain bugs, or be limited in other ways. If you install Python from Fink or MacPorts, you have the liberty of updating it.
Another, important advantage of managing your own version of Python with a package manager (Fink or MacPorts) is that they help a lot with the compilation of module dependencies (for instance when you use a module that depends on compiled C code). Thus, installing Python modules is certainly easier if you do not use the Python shipped with OS X. This is an important point to consider, before making your choice.
What you do on your on machine is totally up to you. If you're going to deploy your code to other people's, I'd say it's clearly preferable to use the shipped version unless you really need the newer version.
I'm digging up this old topic.
There are no real answers to create your own python distro/framework from source and bundle and package it in a correct way. I tried to compile it from source, linking it against my C programmed application which uses python 3 and works on my computer. But when I move it around the filesystem (e.g to /tmp) it has hardcoded paths in the python compile. And I have no clue what script/wrapper to make.
My point to ship our own python distro is to make sure there is no oddness in interpeter change involved when shipping the application and rely on the OS python install.
It is also nowhere documented on the python docs.
I already found this post 4206511
short version: how can I get rid of the multiple-versions-of-python nightmare ?
long version: over the years, I've used several versions of python, and what is worse, several extensions to python (e.g. pygame, pylab, wxPython...). Each time it was on a different setup, with different OSes, sometimes different architectures (like my old PowerPC mac).
Nowadays I'm using a mac (OSX 10.6 on x86-64) and it's a dependency nightmare each time I want to revive script older than a few months. Python itself already comes in three different flavours in /usr/bin (2.5, 2.6, 3.1), but I had to install 2.4 from macports for pygame, something else (cannot remember what) forced me to install all three others from macports as well, so at the end of the day I'm the happy owner of seven (!) instances of python on my system.
But that's not the problem, the problem is, none of them has the right (i.e. same set of) libraries installed, some of them are 32bits, some 64bits, and now I'm pretty much lost.
For example right now I'm trying to run a three-year-old script (not written by me) which used to use matplotlib/numpy to draw a real-time plot within a rectangle of a wxwidgets window. But I'm failing miserably: py26-wxpython from macports won't install, stock python has wxwidgets included but also has some conflict between 32 bits and 64 bits, and it doesn't have numpy... what a mess !
Obviously, I'm doing things the wrong way. How do you usally cope with all that chaos ?
I solve this using virtualenv. I sympathise with wanting to avoid further layers of nightmare abstraction, but virtualenv is actually amazingly clean and simple to use. You literally do this (command line, Linux):
virtualenv my_env
This creates a new python binary and library location, and symlinks to your existing system libraries by default. Then, to switch paths to use the new environment, you do this:
source my_env/bin/activate
That's it. Now if you install modules (e.g. with easy_install), they get installed to the lib directory of the my_env directory. They don't interfere with existing libraries, you don't get weird conflicts, stuff doesn't stop working in your old environment. They're completely isolated.
To exit the environment, just do
deactivate
If you decide you made a mistake with an installation, or you don't want that environment anymore, just delete the directory:
rm -rf my_env
And you're done. It's really that simple.
virtualenv is great. ;)
Some tips:
on Mac OS X, use only the python installation in /Library/Frameworks/Python.framework.
whenever you use numpy/scipy/matplotlib, install the enthought python distribution
use virtualenv and virtualenvwrapper to keep those "system" installations pristine; ideally use one virtual environment per project, so each project's dependencies are fulfilled. And, yes, that means potentially a lot of code will be replicated in the various virtual envs.
That seems like a bigger mess indeed, but at least things work that way. Basically, if one of the projects works in a virtualenv, it will keep working no matter what upgrades you perform, since you never change the "system" installs.
Take a look at virtualenv.
What I usually do is trying to (progressively) keep up with the Python versions as they come along (and once all of the external dependencies have correct versions available).
Most of the time the Python code itself can be transferred as-is with only minor needed modifications.
My biggest Python project # work (15.000+ LOC) is now on Python 2.6 a few months (upgrading everything from Python 2.5 did take most of a day due to installing / checking 10+ dependencies...)
In general I think this is the best strategy with most of the interdependent components in the free software stack (think the dependencies in the linux software repositories): keep your versions (semi)-current (or at least: progressing at the same pace).
install the python versions you need, better if from sources
when you write a script, include the full python version into it (such as #!/usr/local/bin/python2.6)
I can't see what could go wrong.
If something does, it's probably macports fault anyway, not yours (one of the reasons I don't use macports anymore).
I know I'm probably missing something and this will get downvoted, but please leave at least a little comment in that case, thanks :)
I use the MacPorts version for everything, but as you note a lot of the default versions are bizarrely old. For example vim omnicomplete in Snow Leopard has python25 as a dependency. A lot of python related ports have old dependencies but you can usually flag the newer version at build time, for example port install vim +python26 instead of port install vim +python. Do a dry run before installing anything to see if you are pulling, for example, the whole of python24 when it isn't necessary. Check portfiles often because the naming convention as Darwin ports was getting off the ground left something to be desired. In practice I just leave everything in the default /opt... folders of MacPorts, including a copy of the entire framework with duplicates of PyObjC, etc., and just stick with one version at a time, retaining the option to return to the system default if things break unexpectedly. Which is all perhaps a bit too much work to avoid using virtualenv, which I've been meaning to get around to using.
I've had good luck using Buildout. You set up a list of which eggs and which versions you want. Buildout then downloads and installs private versions of each for you. It makes a private "python" binary with all the eggs already installed. A local "nosetests" makes things easy to debug. You can extend the build with your own functions.
On the down side, Buildout can be quite mysterious. Do "buildout -vvvv" for a while to see exactly what it's doing and why.
http://www.buildout.org/docs/tutorial.html
At least under Linux, multiple pythons can co-exist fairly happily. I use Python 2.6 on a CentOS system that needs Python 2.4 to be the default for various system things. I simply compiled and installed python 2.6 into a separate directory tree (and added the appropriate bin directory to my path) which was fairly painless. It's then invoked by typing "python2.6".
Once you have separate pythons up and running, installing libraries for a specific version is straightforward. If you invoke the setup.py script with the python you want, it will be installed in directories appropriate to that python, and scripts will be installed in the same directory as the python executable itself and will automagically use the correct python when invoked.
I also try to avoid using too many libraries. When I only need one or two functions from a library (eg scipy), I'll often see if I can just copy them to my own project.