In article <499707a0.7000...@v.loewis.de>, "Martin v. Lowis" <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote: > > 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!
That's fine as long as the distutils issue is resolved. I believe the way things stand today is that a "fat" Python built with a deployment target of 10.3 will report a platform of "ppc" or "i386" even on 10.4 or 10.5 systems and even though the extensions are, in fact, "fat". This means developers who provide uploads to PyPI of packages with C extensions have to upload two versions even though the contents of both can be identical. (The appscript has run into this problem.) And it causes maintenance issues for users with multiple architectures. With the target set to 10.4, the platform is reported correctly as "fat". And, for 10.5 4-way, "universal". -- Ned Deily, n...@acm.org _______________________________________________ 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
