> A single installer could support both 32-bit on 10.4 and 64-bit on > 10.5, but I don't think that's very useful because there are changes > in the low-level unix API's that could result in different behaviour > of a 32-bit and 64-bit script on the same system. In general 10.5 has > much saner Unix API's than earlier releases.
I don't get that. Why would the scripts behave differently on 10.5 depending on whether the Python interpreter is 32-bit or 64-bit? Surely, the Unix API does the same thing, whether invoked from 32-bit code, or 64-bit code, no? >> I still wish there were 10.3+ installers that also include 64-bit >> code. I don't get it why that can't be technically possible. > > The problem with 10.3 support is that we need volunteers to actually > investigate and fix issues that only occur on 10.3 systems. I cannot > be that volunteer because I no longer have access to systems that are > capable of running 10.3. I don't think it is necessary to actually test whether the binaries work on 10.3; I don't test the Windows installers on Windows 2000, either. For me, it's good enough if we believe that the installer "should" work on 10.3. Then, if somebody reports a problem, we can still consider what to do. If there are no reports, it either means there are no problems, or nobody uses it, or nobody bothers reporting the problems. > That said, the difference between a binary capable of running on > 10.4+ and one running 10.3+ is minimal. I introduced weak-linking for > a number of symbols that are not present on 10.3.9 in the 2.5 > timeframe and that could should continue to work in the future. I > won't notice when someone introduces additional calls to functions > not available on 10.3 though. Sounds good to me! Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
