Develop Reference

How to install multiple versions of Python in Windows?

up until recently I have only worked with one version of Python and used virtual environments every now and then. Now, I am working with some libraries that require older version of Python. So, I am very confused. Could anyone please clear up some of my confusion?
How do I install multiple Python versions?
I initially had Python version 3.8.x but upgraded to 3.10.x last month. There is currently only that one version on my PC now.
I wanted to install one of the Python 3.8.x version and went to https://www.python.org/downloads/. It lists a lot of versions and subversions like 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 etc. etc. with 3.8.1, 3.8.2 till 3.8.13. Which one should I pick?
I actually went ahead with 3.8.12 and downloaded the Tarball on the page: https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-3812/
I extracted the tarball (23.6MB) and it created a folder with a setup.py file.
Is Python 3.8.12 now installed? Clicking on the setup.py file simply flashes the terminal for a second.
I have a few more questions. Hopefully, they won't get me downvoted. I am just confused and couldn't find proper answers for them.
Why does Python have such heavy dependency on the exact versions of libraries and packages etc?
For example, this question
How can I run Mozilla TTS/Coqui TTS training with CUDA on a Windows system?. This seems very beginner unfriendly. Slightly mismatched package
version can prevent any program from running.
Do virtual environments copy all the files from the main Python installation to create a virtual environment and then install specific packages inside it? Isn't that a lot of wasted resources in duplication because almost all projects require there own virtual environment.

Your questions depend a bit on "all the other software". For example, as #leiyang indicated, the answer will be different if you use conda vs just pip on vanilla CPython (the standard Windows Python).
I'm also going to assume you're actually on Windows, because on Linux I would recommend looking at pyenv. There is a pyenv-win, which may be worth looking into, but I don't use it myself because it doesn't play as nice if you also want (mini)conda environments.
1. (a) How do I install multiple Python versions?
Simply download the various installers and install them in sensible locations. E.g. "C:\Program Files\Python39" for Python 3.9, or some other location where you're allowed to install software.
Don't have Python add itself to the PATH though, since that'll only find the last version to do so and can really confuse things.
Also, you probably want to use virtual environments consistently, as this ties a specific project very clearly to a specific Python version, avoiding future confusion or problems.
1. (b) "3.8.1, 3.8.2 till 3.8.13" which should I pick?
Always pick the latest 3.x.y, so if there's a 3.8.13 for Windows, but no 3.8.14, pick that. Check if the version is actually available for your operating system, sometimes there are later versions for one OS, but not for another.
The reason is that between a verion like 3.6 and 3.7, there may be major changes that change how Python works. Generally, there will be backwards compatibility, but some changes may break how some of your packages work. However, when going up a minor version, there won't be any such breaking changes, just fixes and additions that don't get in the way of what was already there. A change from 2.x to 3.x only happens if the language itself goes through a major change, and rarely happens (and perhaps never will again, depending on who you ask).
An exception to the "no minor version change problems" is of course if you run some script that very specifically relies on something that was broken in 3.8.6, but no fixed in 3.8.7+ (as an example). However, that's very bad coding, to rely on what's broken and not fixing it later, so only go along with that if you have no other recourse. Otherwise, just the latest minor version of any version you're after.
Also: make sure you pick the correct architecture. If there's no specific requirement, just pick 64-bit, but if your script needs to interact with other installed software at the binary level, it may require you to install 32-bit Python (and 32-bit packages as well). If you have no such requirement, 64-bit allows more memory access and has some other benefits on modern computers.
2. Why does Python have such heavy dependency on the exact versions of libraries and packages etc?
It's not just Python, this is true for many languages. It's just more visible to the end user for Python, because you run it as an interpreted language. It's only compiled at the very last moment, on the computer it's running on.
This has the advantage that the code can run on a variety of computers and operating systems, but the downside that you need the right environment where you're running it. For people who code in languages like C++, they have to deal with this problem when they're coding, but target a much smaller number of environments (although there's still runtimes to contend with, and DirectX versions, etc.). Other languages just roll everything up into the program that's being distributed, while a Python script by itself can be tiny. It's a design choice.
There are a lot of tools to help you automate the process though and well-written packages will make the process quite painless. If you feel Python is very shakey when it comes to this, that's probable to blame on the packages or scripts you're using, not really the language. The only fault of the language is that it makes it very easy for developers to make such a mess for you and make your life hard with getting specific requirements.
Look for alternatives, but if you can't avoid using a specific script or package, once you figure out how to install or use it, document it or better yet, automate it so you don't have to think about it again.
3. Do virtual environments copy all the files from the main Python installation to create a virtual environment and then install specific packages inside it? Isn't that a lot of wasted resources in duplication because almost all projects require there own virtual environment.
Not all of them, but quite a few of them. However, you still need the original installation to be present on the system. Also, you can't pick up a virtual environment and put it somewhere else, not even on the same PC without some careful changes (often better to just recreate it).
You're right that this is a bit wasteful - but this is a difficult choice.
Either Python would be even more complicated, having to manage many different version of packages in a single environment (Java developers will be able to tell you war stories about this, with their dependency management - or wax lyrically about it, once they get it themselves).
Or you get what we have: a bit wasteful, but in the end diskspace is a lot cheaper than your time. And unlike your time, diskspace is almost infinitely expandable.
You can share virtual environments between very similar projects though, but especially if you get your code from someone else, it's best to not have to worry and just give up a few dozen MB for the project. On the upside: you can just delete a virtual environment directory and that pretty much gets rid of the whole things. Some applications like PyCharm may remember that it was once there, but other than that, that's the virtual environment gone.

Just install them. You can have any number of Python installations side by side. Unless you need to have 2 different minor versions, for example 3.10.1 and 3.10.2, there is no need to do anything special. (And if you do need that then you don't need any advice.) Just set up separate shortcuts for each one.
Remember you have to install any 3rd-party libraries you need in each version. To do this, navigate to the Scripts folder in the version you want to do the install in, and run pip from that folder.
Python's 3rd-party libraries are open-source and come from projects that have release schedules that don't necessarily coincide with Python's. So they will not always have a version available that coincides with the latest version of Python.
Often you can get around this by downloading unofficial binaries from Christoph Gohlke's site. Google Python Gohlke.

Install Python using the windows executable installers from python.org. If the version is 3.x.y, use the highest y that has a windows executable installer. Unless your machine is very old, use the 64-bit versions. Do not have them add python to your PATH environment variable, but in only one of the installs have it install the python launcher py. That will help you in using multiple versions. See e.g. here.
Python itself does not. But some modules/libraries do. Especially those that are not purely written in Python but contain extensions written in C(++). The reason for this is that compiling programs on ms-windows can be a real PITA. Unlike UNIX-like operating systems with Linux, ms-windows doesn't come with development tools as standard. Nor does it have decent package management. Since the official Python installers are built with microsoft tools, you need to use those with C(++) extensions as well. Before 2015, you even had to use exactly the same version of the compiler that Python was built with. That is still a good idea, but no longer strictly necessary. So it is a signigicant amount of work for developers to release binary packages for each supported Python version. It is much easier for them to say "requires Python 3.x".

How can I wrap Python processes in an OSGi deployment

I need to integrate a body of Python code into an existing OSGi (Apache Felix) deployment.
I assume, or at least hope, that packages exist to help with this effort.
If it helps, the Python code is still relatively new and small, so can probably re re-architected to meet whatever constraints are needed. However, it must remain in Python, because of dependencies on third-party libraries.
What are suggested best practices?

The trick is to make this an extender, see 1 and 2. You want your Python code to be separate from the code that handles the interaction with the interpreter. So what you do is wrap the Python code and any native libraries in a bundle. This is trivial since it is just a zip file.
You then develop a bundle that listens to starting bundle (see the BundleTracker) that have python code. A manifest is often used but you can also look in a directory in the JAR. If you detect this code, you extract any native libraries and run the code in the interpeter of your choice.
If can use JYthon then that would be highly recommended. You can then carry the interpreter as an OSGi bundle that runs on the VM. If you need to use a native compiler your life is less rosy. You can rely on the environment to provide you with an interpreter but then why use OSGi in the first place. You basically lose the write once run anywhere advantage. You could go the full monty by creating bundles that contain Python installers for all platforms you support. Can be done, not even that hard, but a maintenance nightmare. Believe me, native code suck, it only does it a bit faster than Java.

Managing Python 3 code with SCons

at work I have the task to convert a large library with Python 2.7 Code to Python 3.x.
This library contains a lot of scripts and extensions made with boost python for C++.
All of this is built with SCons which does not work with a Python 3.x interpreter, but now me and my supervisor want to know if there is a way around this.
The SConstruct file contains expressions with sys.version to determine the correct module-directories to import (numpy etc.). I do not know how to use SCons or the syntax, so I can not give a lot of information about this topic.
Can we use SCons to build Python 3 Code with the given extensions or do we have to wait until SCons is compatible with Python 3?

At the time of writing this, there are plans to support both Python 2.7 and 3.x in a single branch/version. Work on this feature has started, but it will take some more time to reach this goal.
So it looks as if your best bet would be to start right away. SCons itself should run fine under Python 2.7 for compiling the Boost extensions. The problem in your case are the added checks and detection mechanisms for deriving paths and module names from the version of the current Python interpreter.
Since you can't give any more detail about this process, my answer is somewhat vague here, sorry. In principle you'd have to find the place in the SConstructs/SConscripts where the version of the currently running Python interpreter is determined. Just hardcode this to the 3.x version that you have installed on the machine additionally, and keep your fingers crossed that the rest will work automatically.
Note how there is a clear separation here between "compiling code for a Python version" vs "compiling code under a Python version".
In general, a better understanding of SCons internal workings and basic principles might be helpful. If you find the time, check out the UserGuide ( http://scons.org/doc/production/HTML/scons-user.html ) or consult our user mailing list ( see http://scons.org/lists.php ) for larger questions and discussions.

Python's freeze.py doesn't install on Windows

I have been looking for the freeze.py utility which is supposed to come bundled with Python 3 in a Python 3.3 Windows install (albeit with distribute and pip installed) and haven't found it. The utility can be downloaded directly out of the Python svn repository here, but I'm wondering: does freeze come with a standard Windows Python 3 install?

It looks like Windows binary installations of Python don't come with the freeze tool. And there's apparently a good reason for this. According to the freeze README in the source tree:
Under Windows 95 or NT, you must use the -p option and point it to the top of the Python source tree.
If you read the whole section, it comes down to this: On Windows, freeze only works if you've built Python from source, and have the resulting tree sitting around to be used for freezing. So, there's no good reason to give you freeze in binary installations.
Meanwhile, I probably should have asked this in the first place, but… are you sure you want freeze in the first place?
The freeze utility is very out of date (you might have guessed that from the README talking about requiring VC++ 5.0, Windows 95 or NT 4.0, etc.). It also never worked that well on Windows (as you can tell from the documentation describing it as a utility "… to compile executables for Unix systems"). And there's just a lot of things it can't handle, or handles badly. At this point should probably be considered more as example code than as a useful tool.
There are a number of third-party alternatives out there: cx_freeze, py2exe, PyInstaller, etc. If you search PyPI for "freeze" (and other terms that seem reasonable), you will find a bunch of these alternatives. If your goal is to create a standalone executable out of your Python script (which, btw, freeze can never do on Windows anyway), experiment with a few of these and pick the one you like best.
If your goal is something different, the right tool will be different—you might be better off using venv or just zipping up a user site-packages directory or creating a local PyPI server.
In the comments, you said:
What I was actually looking for is a tool to convert Python code to C code. Apparently, that's impossible.
It's not impossible, it's just not what freeze (or its successors/competitors) does. Cython compiles almost a strict superset of Python to C code, although it's C code that uses Python runtime objects (except where you explicitly statically declare variables and functions with C types). If C++ is an acceptable alternative to C, Shed Skin compiles a restricted subset of Python 2.6 (using native C++ objects, and using type inference so you don't have to statically declare your types).
The question is why you want to compile Python code to C.
If you're looking to optimize some slow code, Cython is great at speeding up small pieces of bottleneck code. It takes a bit of effort (deciding what to move to Cython, what static type declarations to put in, etc.), but the curve of payoff to effort is pretty solid. Shed Skin takes a lot less effort—if it works, it just speeds up everything, automatically—but it also means you can't write a lot of idiomatic Python code in the first place. But really, before looking at either, you should consider PyPy, a complete implementation of Python 2.7.3 (and hopefully 3.3 soon) in a JIT-compiling interpreter, that often offers similar speedups, with pretty much no tradeoffs at all. Or, alternatively, you may just need to rewrite slow code to take advantage of already-optimized libraries (numpy instead of mapping over lists, itertools instead of explicit loops, lxml instead of html.parse, …).
If you're looking to write Python code that can interact directly with C code, without all the headaches of ctypes (or manually building Python bindings), Cython scores again. Cython code can effectively natively call both Python code and C code, and the compiler makes it all work like magic.
If you're looking to get C code that you can read, maintain, and improve on… there, you're out of luck. And this one may actually be impossible. Idiomatic Python code is just so different from idiomatic C code that it's hard to imagine how you could translate one into the other.
If you're wondering what the underlying problem is:
As far as I can tell, freeze makes a lot of assumptions about how things are laid out. It should be enough to have any Python installation that can build C extension modules and embedding apps, but it's not, because freeze goes under the covers and expects that building to work in specific ways. A standard binary installation on almost every *nix platform ends up looking like what freeze expects,* but a standard binary installation on Windows looks completely different.
It's not impossible to hack things up using Windows symlinks (at least if you have Vista or later and a drive with a modern version of NTFS) to get everything organized the way freeze expects (I found a blog where someone did that with 2.7.1…), but really, I don't think it's worth trying. It will be a lot of work (especially if you're just learning this stuff), and there's no guarantee you won't immediately run into another problem.
* This isn't actually true. On a Mac, both Apple's pre-installed Python and the binary installers at python.org actually give you the files organized as a Mac framework—but they provide a bunch of symlinks that simulate the traditional layout, which is good enough. On most linux distros, and many other platforms, the binary python package doesn't include any of the development files at all—but once you install an add-on binary package named something like python-devel, then you've got the right layout. Anyway, none of this matters to you, because if you wanted to learn about dpkg dependencies or framework builds you wouldn't be using Windows, right?

Micropython or minimal python installation

I once read about minimal python installation without a lot of the libraries that come with the python default installation but could not find it on the web...
What I want to do is to just pack a script with the python stuff required to execute it and make portable.
Does any one know about something like that?
Thanks

Micro Python is actively maintained and has been ported to a bunch of microcontrollers.
For other small implementations, you might also want to check out tinypy or PyMite.
If you don't care about size, but really just want an easy way to distribute a python program, consider PyInstaller or one of the others on this list.

Portable python might do what you want. It's a python installation for USB thumb drives.

There's now finally Micro Python, claiming to be full reimplementation of Python 3 core, fitting even into medium-size 32bit microcontrollers. API will be different of course, so C modules will require porting. Project is funded via KickStarter, source code will be released some time after the campaign (request for consideration was made to author to not delay release of the source, to help bootstrap Micro Python community sooner).
http://micropython.org/

You can also look for already installed instances.
OpenOffice / LibreOffice
Look at the environment variable UNO_PATH or into the default install directories, for example for Windows and LO5
%ProgramFiles(x86)%\LibreOffice 5\program\python.exe
Gimp
look into the default install directories, for example for Windows
C:\Program Files\GIMP 2\Python
and so on...