On Tuesday 13 May 2008 11:59:48 Giovanni Bajo wrote: > On 5/13/2008 10:24 AM, Phil Thompson wrote: > > On Tuesday 13 May 2008 09:16:59 you wrote: > >> Hi Phil, > >> > >> First we will install Qt/MinGW and then your installer ? And we have to > >> do this for every machine we want our code to run, correct ? > > > > Correct. Of course there is nothing to stop you creating your own single > > installer containing exactly what you need. > > > >> Ps: Just of curiosity: Why is that change ? > > > > It's too much trouble for me, particularly as building Qt is getting more > > complicated. > > I understand but I think it's a really wrong commercial move. > > The only reason for that package to exist was that it allowed people to > install a complete PyQt version to experiment with a single click. > Instead, you're now forcing people to go through two different > installers, one of which even poses questions which are absolutely > useless and uncomprehensable for Python programmers which are not C++ > programmers. > > I personally saw a *large* increase of interest in Python Windows > programmers since the consolidated installer was released. It would be a > shame to see a regression there. > > I really hope you reconsider your choice.
What I might consider doing is producing an alternative installer for Qt, ie. a Qt-Lite that only includes the bits that PyQt requires. Phil _______________________________________________ PyQt mailing list PyQt@riverbankcomputing.com http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt
