Using PIL on multiple systems - python

looking for some advice and best practice guidance with the following situation. I have a python application that is run from source and has all dependencies included. When using PIL some issues arise. Different python versions need different PIL sources and 64 bit and 32 bit need different version.
We have decided we want to support:
Python 2.4 64 bit
Python 2.4 32 bit
Python 2.7 64 bit
Python 2.7 32 bit
I will have to locate the necessary source packages and include them all. The question is what is the best way to import them? Do I check python version and OS version and import different PIL versions based on that (can you if, else import stuff?) or can I import once for all?
Hope that all makes sense. Thanks

I'm going to take the opposite direction of #alan's answer and not recommend you even distribute your 4 hard-coded environments like that.
If you are distributing source code directly, then you shouldn't be including prebuilt dependencies at all. Create some kind of setup.py to have the dependencies downloaded and installed. Or consider packaging your app into a self-contained executable
Your package could contain the setup files for PIL locally so a download wouldn't be needed, but they should get built by the actual end-user to match their architecture. There is no point in trying to make your application figure all of this out and point to one of many precompiled packages.
You can also take a look at py2exe, py2app, and pyinstaller if you want to go the route of creating self-executable packages for different systems that contain their entire environment.

Have you heard of virtualenv? http://pypi.python.org/pypi/virtualenv
From your stated requirements, I believe it will do what you need. It was created specifically to solve the problem of installing and maintaining different environments for different versions of Python and different packages installed for each version.
Take a look and see if it does what you need, though I believe you would need two different boxes (or VMs) to separate the 32- and 64-bit environments.
At any rate, once you have your four environments set up, you would just activate an enviroment and the import PIL statement in Python code running in that environment would get the proper library.

Related

python and package installment while application is installed

I have done some image processing works using python 3.5, opencv, scikit modules etc for an unreal engine game application.
I have manually installed python and other modules using pip in my windows system.
Now when a user installs the application, i want python and those modules to be installed auto with the application's installment.
I saw pyinstaller which turns py file to application file but unfortunately could not understand how to work it of what i want.
Thank you for any piece of advice.
First, let me say Python packaging has improved a lot over the years, but is still considered very hard compared to other languages like e.g. golang.
Generally, I see two ways how to bring your applications to your user.
Either make a Python package or create an installable package for an operation system.
A Python package means, you could upload it somewhere (e.g. PyPi) and your users could pip install your_package. This involves a lot of work. A good starting point would be:
https://packaging.python.org/tutorials/packaging-projects/
The second option is to create an installer or e.g. Windows.
There are several tools out there, like the mentioned pyinstaller, more on this page: https://docs.python-guide.org/shipping/freezing/
Also, there is a new option called PyOxidizer ( https://pyoxidizer.readthedocs.io/en/stable/overview.html ).
At work we used cx_Freeze - which worked ok.
Unfortunately, there is no easy way. Have a look at several options, and then decide for one.

What are the bare minimum files/libraries required by Python to run?

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!

additional python installed upon installing matplotlib with macports

I am having trouble installing matplotlib on mac os 10.6, so I used macports and installed all dependencies it needed, which is great, but on top of it a new python version. Now I have two python versions and that bothers me. The matplotlib is working fine on the macport python, and the rest of my stuff is with the default python.
What is the best solution for integrating both into one, and which one to use as the default python?
I tried copying all packages from my default python /defaultPython/../site-packages into the /opt/../site-packages. Same thing would be to add /defaultPython/../site-packages on the PYTHONPATH of macports python.
Some did work fine, but not all.
For example on
import scipy.sparse
I got this error
import _csr
ImportError: dlopen(/opt/local/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/2.6/lib/python2.6/site-packages/scipy/sparse/sparsetools/_csr.so, 2): no suitable image found. Did find:
/opt/local/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/2.6/lib/python2.6/site-packages/scipy/sparse/sparsetools/_csr.so: no matching architecture in universal wrapper
Any thoughts or dirty fix for this?
Thanks a lot!
You should never remove or alter the system Python that Apple supplies with Mac OS X -- that's the specific build they've tested their OS with, and you really don't want to break that.
If you want to use handy macports-installed extensions, you need the macports version of Python for that purpose, so you can't remove that either.
There is no real reason to worry because you have more than one Python version on your system (I typically have at least half a dozen on mine;-).
Just put /opt/... (wherever macports keeps its bin directory) at the start of your PATH environment variable (e.g. in .bashrc) and make sure you install with the macports Python any extension you need there.

On Mac OS X, do you use the shipped python or your own?

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

How to maintain long-lived python projects w.r.t. dependencies and python versions?

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.

Categories