You install all 3rd party dependencies into some directory. The command line entry point is then a simple BASH script which sets the PYTHONPATH to the appropriate installation location and then does the appropriate exec call.
You then have a functionally portable python installation.
Really?
I think as soon as you start writing all caps trivial has gone right out the window.
Trivial would be application dependencies managed by the system package manager.
I'm at the point where I won't touch a python app or library that can't be installed via Pacman. It's just not worth my time.
And... python is still the only thing on arch that gives me the shits everytime it upgrades.
Math textbooks have been doing this for decades, but it's leaked into common parlance with online discussion.
Of course this is not when most people think when they hear the word so really it's a term of art that should probably be avoided when talking to non-mathematicians.
As i read through my old uni maths notes there are often wild leaps from a to e along with a little scrawl saying "trivially" or "obviously". They may have been true once, but god dammit 21 year old me was a knobber
I have never had to support all of the mobile environments of DropBox nor the scale, so I cannot claim that my 99% solution would ever meet their 99.999% requirements. But I have been able to package Python apps for Mac OSX, WinVista, Win7, Ubuntu, and CentOS at the same time using that strategy.
The user doesn't need to have python installed at all, and if they have 2.x instead of 3.x or 3.3 when you're expecting features that are only present in >= 3.5, it's no issue.
This may sound trivial, but it's a _huge_ deal, particularly when you need to deploy something that runs on multiple different OSes and versions of OSes.
Other than that, the "directory full of libs, binaries, and code" approach is a lot easier to package into something that will work well with the native package manager (e.g. an .msi for windows, etc).