I've found a dual-processor G4 to run the PPC Tiger buildbot on (it's
currently an old e Mac), and I plan to take this buildbot down
tomorrow,
Wednesday, to upgrade.
Bill
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.or
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 03:01:57 am l...@rmi.net wrote:
> So my point is just this: Change for change's sake is truly not
> what most Python users want. If Python core developers want 3.X
> to become as popular as 2.X, they should be less concerned with
> posts on this list or hands at a conference, t
> Assume, for the sake of the argument, that we patched the
> MSI so it (optionally) added the installing version of Python
> (and, optionally ./scripts) to the PATH. What, then, do we
> do with existing PATH entries which point to older/other Python
> installations? Option (a) says: clear them
> a
On 12/10/2010 7:17 PM, R. David Murray wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 19:33:52 +0200,
=?windows-1252?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?= wrote:
So as well as pysetup.py/.exe I would like pysetup-3.2.py / .exe on
Windows please. (I'd really like a python-3.2.exe as well.)
Please submit a patch to the i
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 19:33:52 +0200,
=?windows-1252?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?= wrote:
> > So as well as pysetup.py/.exe I would like pysetup-3.2.py / .exe on
> > Windows please. (I'd really like a python-3.2.exe as well.)
>
> Please submit a patch to the installer, then.
>
> I'm still skeptic
> So as well as pysetup.py/.exe I would like pysetup-3.2.py / .exe on
> Windows please. (I'd really like a python-3.2.exe as well.)
Please submit a patch to the installer, then.
I'm still skeptical about adding PATH, because
a) I find that fairly invasive, and despise long paths myself
(it hur
ba...@python.org wrote in the full post below:
> I'm reminded of a survey Guido conducted at some long past
> Python conference. He asked (paraphrasing): raise your hand
> if you think Python is changing too fast. Lots of hands went
> up. Then he asked, raise your hand if you have a feature you
On Oct 12, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Greg Ewing wrote:
>Giampaolo Rodolà wrote:
>
>> If that's the case what would I type in the command prompt in order to
>> install a module?
>> "C:\PythonXX\pysetup.exe"?
>> If so I would strongly miss old "setup.py install".
>
>Another thing bothers me about this. Wit
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
...
> I would assume (am I wrong?) that the canonical way of installing
> modules on Windows for "non-advanced" users under distutils2 would
> still be to download and run a binary installer.
Yes this won't change.
Regards
Tarek
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On behalf of the Python development team, I'm happy to announce the
third and final alpha preview release of Python 3.2.
Python 3.2 is a continuation of the efforts to improve and stabilize the
Python 3.x line. Since the final release of Python 2.7,
On 12/10/2010 12:55, Paul Moore wrote:
On 12 October 2010 00:42, Giampaolo Rodolà wrote:
I know. My point was you can't do it by default and installing a
module is something even a less experienced user usually does.
Typing "C:\PythonXX\pysetup" is harder compared to "setup.py install"
and sol
On 12 October 2010 00:42, Giampaolo Rodolà wrote:
> I know. My point was you can't do it by default and installing a
> module is something even a less experienced user usually does.
> Typing "C:\PythonXX\pysetup" is harder compared to "setup.py install"
> and solving this problem by modifying your
On 12/10/2010 00:11, Giampaolo Rodolà wrote:
Wouldn't be kinda weird that one can open the command prompt and run
"pysetup" but not "python" on Windows?
I recall an old issue on the bug tracker in which the latter proposal
was widely discussed and finally rejected for reasons I can't remember
(a
13 matches
Mail list logo
