On 24 Apr, 2010, at 18:15, Michael Foord wrote:
> On 18/04/2010 15:13, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>> On 14 Apr, 2010, at 23:37, Michael Foord wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 14/04/2010 23:32, Greg Ewing wrote:
>>>
Michael Foord wrote:
> Building Python requires, I believe, the XCode
On 24/04/2010 22:16, Michael Foord wrote:
On 24/04/2010 21:50, David Bolen wrote:
Michael Foord writes:
Hmmm... looks like a 32 / 64 bit issue, which I believe may be the
expected result when trying to build on Snow Leopard (?).
I think so - I haven't tried a 64-bit build myself, but there's
On 24/04/2010 21:50, David Bolen wrote:
Michael Foord writes:
Hmmm... looks like a 32 / 64 bit issue, which I believe may be the
expected result when trying to build on Snow Leopard (?).
I think so - I haven't tried a 64-bit build myself, but there's a
comment in setup.py indicating
Michael Foord writes:
> Hmmm... looks like a 32 / 64 bit issue, which I believe may be the
> expected result when trying to build on Snow Leopard (?).
I think so - I haven't tried a 64-bit build myself, but there's a
comment in setup.py indicating that none of the Tcl/Tk framework
builds support
On 24/04/2010 21:34, David Bolen wrote:
Michael Foord writes:
10.6.3 and yes I have Tcl and Tk in /Library/Frameworks. How do I
determine which versions they are?
You can use "info patchlevel" in tclsh - assuming you're running a
tclsh linked to your /Library version (a normal Tcl i
Michael Foord writes:
> 10.6.3 and yes I have Tcl and Tk in /Library/Frameworks. How do I
> determine which versions they are?
You can use "info patchlevel" in tclsh - assuming you're running a
tclsh linked to your /Library version (a normal Tcl install puts this
in /usr/local/bin I think).
Or,
On 18/04/2010 15:13, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
On 14 Apr, 2010, at 23:37, Michael Foord wrote:
On 14/04/2010 23:32, Greg Ewing wrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
Building Python requires, I believe, the XCode development tools to be
installed. Even then, building a full version of Py
Ronald Oussoren writes:
> On 18 Apr, 2010, at 17:17, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>
>> Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>>>
>>> That *is* trivial: use Mac/BuildScript/build-installer.py on OSX 10.5.
>>
>> Hmm. When I tried it (on some 2.5 release), it took me two days until it
>> produced something.
>
> It sho
On 18 Apr, 2010, at 17:17, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>> On 15 Apr, 2010, at 6:36, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>>
>>> Greg Ewing wrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
> Building Python requires, I believe, the XCode development tools to be
> installed. Even then, building a fu
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
> On 15 Apr, 2010, at 6:36, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>
>> Greg Ewing wrote:
>>> Michael Foord wrote:
Building Python requires, I believe, the XCode development tools to be
installed. Even then, building a full version of Python - with *all*
the C extensions that
On 15 Apr, 2010, at 6:36, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Greg Ewing wrote:
>> Michael Foord wrote:
>>> Building Python requires, I believe, the XCode development tools to be
>>> installed. Even then, building a full version of Python - with *all*
>>> the C extensions that are part of a Python release -
On 15 Apr, 2010, at 0:12, Zvezdan Petkovic wrote:
> On Apr 14, 2010, at 4:40 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>
>>> I think you just need to supply to configure
>>>
>>> MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET=10.4
>>>
>>> and have the appropriate SDK installed with Xcode.
>>
>> Wouldn't that break 10.3 compatibil
On 14 Apr, 2010, at 23:37, Michael Foord wrote:
> On 14/04/2010 23:32, Greg Ewing wrote:
>> Michael Foord wrote:
>>> Building Python requires, I believe, the XCode development tools to be
>>> installed. Even then, building a full version of Python - with *all* the C
>>> extensions that are part
Bill Janssen wrote:
> Martin v. Löwis wrote:
[..]
>> It would take even more expertise to capture the remaining pieces in the
>> script, too, and no living person has that much expertise to write the
>> script (perhaps there are one or two people, and they don't have the time).
>
> Well, God forb
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> Michael Foord wrote:
>>
>>> Building the Mac installer requires volunteer time which I'm not sure
>>> that more hardware will fix - compiling a full build of Python for Mac
>>> OS X (with all the Python modules like Tkinter etc) requires expertise
>>> which only a few peo
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 04:41, Ned Deily wrote:
> In article <4bc697d2.4020...@v.loewis.de>,
> "Martin v. Lowis" wrote:
> > Greg Ewing wrote:
> > > Michael Foord wrote:
> > >> Building Python requires, I believe, the XCode development tools to be
> > >> installed. Even then, building a full ver
> If it were working that could be of use. It would not be able to run OS
> X 10.6 but having a 10.5 system PPC system as a buildbot would certainly
> be useful; it should be fine for the default installer configuration
> builds. (Alas, I don't expect to be anywhere in the vicinity in the
> f
In article <19399.11323.946604.992...@montanaro.dyndns.org>,
s...@pobox.com wrote:
> Ned> Any idea what type of machine it is and where it is currently
> Ned> located?
>
> I seem to recall it is/was a G4 XServe. My guess as to location would be at
> xs4all.nl.
If it were working that c
Ned Deily wrote:
> In article <4bc61278.7020...@v.loewis.de>,
> "Martin v. Lowis" wrote:
>> Ned Deily wrote:
>>> That *is* something that the PSF could help with. I
>>> would be happy to help with that myself, although my time to do so will
>>> be very limited for the next few weeks.
>> The PS
>>> What's non-trivial about it?
>> Building a DMG file, in a way that the output will actually work on most
>> other systems.
>
> As Ronald pointed out, the installer build script does all of the dirty
> work of building the install disk image (the .dmg file), including
> downloading and build
Ned> Any idea what type of machine it is and where it is currently
Ned> located?
I seem to recall it is/was a G4 XServe. My guess as to location would be at
xs4all.nl.
Skip
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.
Whilst making Python easier to build on the Mac is certainly a worthy
goal, the point of my post was to demonstrate (in reply to an email by
Greg Ewing) *why* building a *full* Python from source was non-trivial.
I personally only build Python from source to test changes to
core-Python and am h
In article <4bc61278.7020...@v.loewis.de>,
"Martin v. Lowis" wrote:
> Ned Deily wrote:
> > That *is* something that the PSF could help with. I
> > would be happy to help with that myself, although my time to do so will
> > be very limited for the next few weeks.
>
> The PSF still has a machin
In article <4bc63599.5020...@voidspace.org.uk>,
Michael Foord wrote:
> A build on my machine produces output similar to:
>
>
> Python build finished, but the necessary bits to build these modules
> were not found:
> _bsddb
third-party (Sleepycat) library needed (see the installer script)
> d
In article <4bc697d2.4020...@v.loewis.de>,
"Martin v. Lowis" wrote:
> Greg Ewing wrote:
> > Michael Foord wrote:
> >> Building Python requires, I believe, the XCode development tools to be
> >> installed. Even then, building a full version of Python - with *all*
> >> the C extensions that are par
Greg Ewing wrote:
> Michael Foord wrote:
>> Building Python requires, I believe, the XCode development tools to be
>> installed. Even then, building a full version of Python - with *all*
>> the C extensions that are part of a Python release - is not a trivial
>> task.
>
> What's non-trivial about
On Apr 14, 2010, at 4:40 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> I think you just need to supply to configure
>>
>> MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET=10.4
>>
>> and have the appropriate SDK installed with Xcode.
>
> Wouldn't that break 10.3 compatibility (seel below)?
I was replying to your point about 10.4 bui
On 14 April 2010 18:36, Steve Holden wrote:
> I spent some considerable effort last year ensuring the developer
> community was well-supplied with MS developer licenses that give access
> to any necessary tools. Was I wasting my time?
Definitely not - my offer is at least in part based on the fac
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> The same is true for any other operating system, though: you need to
> install the compiler tool chain (sometimes, you need to buy it first),
> and compiling Python with all extensions is not a trivial task.
Even on Linux, it takes a bit of fiddling. I finally remembered t
Paul Moore writes:
> On 14 April 2010 07:37, Paul Rudin wrote:
>> "Martin v. Löwis" writes:
>>
>>> The major difference in the "do it yourself" attitude is that Mac user
>>> get a compiler for free, as part of the operating system release,
>>> whereas for Windows, they have to pay for it (leavi
On 14/04/2010 23:32, Greg Ewing wrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
Building Python requires, I believe, the XCode development tools to
be installed. Even then, building a full version of Python - with
*all* the C extensions that are part of a Python release - is not a
trivial task.
What's non-trivi
Michael Foord wrote:
Building Python requires, I
believe, the XCode development tools to be installed. Even then,
building a full version of Python - with *all* the C extensions that are
part of a Python release - is not a trivial task.
What's non-trivial about it? I usually find that the nor
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> > Michael Foord wrote:
> >
> >> Building the Mac installer requires volunteer time which I'm not sure
> >> that more hardware will fix - compiling a full build of Python for Mac
> >> OS X (with all the Python modules like Tkinter etc) requires expertise
> >> which only
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> > I'd be happy to help where I can, too. All my automated testing of
> > UpLib (Windows, Ubuntu, Fedora, OS X) is done on Apple servers running
> > OS X and VirtualBox and Hudson, so I've got some experience there.
>
> Would you be interested in operating a build slave?
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 14:06:44 -0400, Eric Smith wrote:
> "Steve Holden" wrote:
>> I spent some considerable effort last year ensuring the developer
>> community was well-supplied with MS developer licenses that give access
>> to any necessary tools. Was I wasting my time?
>
> In my case it was not
> I think you just need to supply to configure
>
> MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET=10.4
>
> and have the appropriate SDK installed with Xcode.
Wouldn't that break 10.3 compatibility (seel below)?
>> Unfortunately, Apple manages to break compatibility and portability
>> with every release, which makes
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 14:03, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> Paul Rudin wrote:
> > "Martin v. Löwis" writes:
> >
> >> The major difference in the "do it yourself" attitude is that Mac user
> >> get a compiler for free, as part of the operating system release,
> >> whereas for Windows, they have to
On Apr 14, 2010, at 3:37 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> I'm not sure whether 10.5 would be sufficient - it may be that you need to go
> back to 10.4 (*).
I think you just need to supply to configure
MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET=10.4
and have the appropriate SDK installed with Xcode.
I belie
On 14/04/2010 21:37, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
[snip...]
Unfortunately the Mac installer build script doesn't seem to run at all
on Mac OS X 10.6 (at least not on my machine), but hopefully the
situation is clarified so that one of us who does still have Mac OS X
10.5 will be able to build the i
> Right - but we were discussing this in the context of barrier to entry,
> particularly to new users. We don't impose this requirement for Windows
> users though - we provide binary installers.
>
> I *know* we're a volunteer organisation (etc), but it is good for us to
> be aware of our process w
On 14/04/2010 20:21, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
Mac users definitely *do* expect installers. Building Python requires, I
believe, the XCode development tools to be installed. Even then,
building a full version of Python - with *all* the C extensions that are
part of a Python release - is not a triv
>>From what I recall, the PC build process is pretty much routine (I
> can't recall how much it's scripted, and how much it's manual, but
> well-documented and simple, steps). I don't know what extra is needed
> to build the final installer, but I'd be willing to have a go at
> testing the existing
> How about as a first step the release build process include a check for
> broken links before committing the web content for a new release?
You'd have to convince the release manager to add a step to the release
process.
Given that the release process has already too many steps, he is
probably
> Michael Foord wrote:
>
>> Building the Mac installer requires volunteer time which I'm not sure
>> that more hardware will fix - compiling a full build of Python for Mac
>> OS X (with all the Python modules like Tkinter etc) requires expertise
>> which only a few people have.
>
> That's nuts.
> I'd be happy to help where I can, too. All my automated testing of
> UpLib (Windows, Ubuntu, Fedora, OS X) is done on Apple servers running
> OS X and VirtualBox and Hudson, so I've got some experience there.
Would you be interested in operating a build slave?
Regards,
Martin
_
Ned Deily wrote:
> That *is* something that the PSF could help with. I
> would be happy to help with that myself, although my time to do so will
> be very limited for the next few weeks.
The PSF still has a machine that was donated by Apple that once used to
be a build slave. Unfortunately, tha
Paul Rudin wrote:
> "Martin v. Löwis" writes:
>
>> The major difference in the "do it yourself" attitude is that Mac user
>> get a compiler for free, as part of the operating system release,
>> whereas for Windows, they have to pay for it (leaving alone VS Express
>> for the moment).
>
> JOOI wh
C. Titus Brown wrote:
> If Georg, Benjamin,
> Martin, or Ronald are interested, please just tell me (or Steve, or the PSF
> board, or ...) what you want and I'll work on getting it funded.
For me, my company provides all the infrastructure I need (tools,
bandwidth, hardware, etc). I agreed, in ret
> Sure - but probably not your average Python-on-Mac user. Or at least a
> good proportion of them, particularly newbies who we are keen to keep
> the experience of obtaining Python simple. First download and then
> install 1gigabyte of developer tools (seriously) requiring registration,
> then com
> I personally think the Mac is pretty important, as one of the big three
> consumer operating systems...
[...]
> I don't know what to do about motivation but if there are barriers that
> we can lower, please let me know.
For example, you could volunteer to produce OSX binaries in a timely
manner
> I assumed that creation of installer binaries for a release depends on
> having the release manager or a lieutenant have access to the given
> platform (Windows, OS/X) and tools, For instance, the RM or lieutenant
> might only have access to such a platform part-time (e.g., only while at
> work,
> Mac users definitely *do* expect installers. Building Python requires, I
> believe, the XCode development tools to be installed. Even then,
> building a full version of Python - with *all* the C extensions that are
> part of a Python release - is not a trivial task.
The same is true for any othe
In my case it was not a waste of time. I use MSDN for dev and testing. Just not
for release building.
"Steve Holden" wrote:
>Paul Moore wrote:
>> On 14 April 2010 07:37, Paul Rudin wrote:
>>> "Martin v. Löwis" writes:
>>>
The major difference in the "do it yourself" attitude is that Mac
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 12:36, Steve Holden wrote:
> Paul Moore wrote:
> > On 14 April 2010 07:37, Paul Rudin wrote:
> >> "Martin v. Löwis" writes:
> >>
> >>> The major difference in the "do it yourself" attitude is that Mac user
> >>> get a compiler for free, as part of the operating system re
On Apr 14, 2010, at 01:36 PM, Steve Holden wrote:
>I spent some considerable effort last year ensuring the developer
>community was well-supplied with MS developer licenses that give access
>to any necessary tools. Was I wasting my time?
At the time I didn't care because I had no access to anythi
Paul Moore wrote:
> On 14 April 2010 07:37, Paul Rudin wrote:
>> "Martin v. Löwis" writes:
>>
>>> The major difference in the "do it yourself" attitude is that Mac user
>>> get a compiler for free, as part of the operating system release,
>>> whereas for Windows, they have to pay for it (leaving
On 14/04/2010 19:25, Steve Holden wrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
On 14/04/2010 06:13, Ned Deily wrote:
In article,
Steve Holden wrote:
Why is it unavoidable that the Mac build will languish behind others?
Are we supporting MacOs or aren't we? If we are, why isn't the crea
Michael Foord wrote:
> On 14/04/2010 06:13, Ned Deily wrote:
>> In article,
>> Steve Holden wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Why is it unavoidable that the Mac build will languish behind others?
>>> Are we supporting MacOs or aren't we? If we are, why isn't the creation
>>> of the build a part of the release
Michael Foord wrote:
> On 14/04/2010 18:49, Steve Holden wrote:
> > Bill Janssen wrote:
> >
> >> Michael Foord wrote:
> >>
> >>
> Isn't that just a matter of having the recipe written down somewhere?
>
>
> >>> Yes, that would be nice. :-) Preferably a recipe th
> > What happened to the big-ass computer farm for Python which was
> > being put together by someone at (I think) Michigan State?
>
> That sounds a lot like Snakebite (www.snakebite.org), which is
> still... uhhh, a work in progress ;-)
Actually, for those that are interested, here's a copy of t
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 06:52:46PM +0200, Michael Foord wrote:
> On 14/04/2010 18:49, Steve Holden wrote:
>> Bill Janssen wrote:
>>
>>> Michael Foord wrote:
>>>
>>>
> Isn't that just a matter of having the recipe written down somewhere?
>
>
Yes, that would be n
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 09:37:34AM -0700, Bill Janssen wrote:
> Michael Foord wrote:
>
> > > Isn't that just a matter of having the recipe written down somewhere?
> > >
> >
> > Yes, that would be nice. :-) Preferably a recipe that doesn't involve
> > Macports or Fink which some of us are all
On 14/04/2010 18:49, Steve Holden wrote:
Bill Janssen wrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
Isn't that just a matter of having the recipe written down somewhere?
Yes, that would be nice. :-) Preferably a recipe that doesn't involve
Macports or Fink which some of us are allergic to
Bill Janssen wrote:
> Michael Foord wrote:
>
>>> Isn't that just a matter of having the recipe written down somewhere?
>>>
>> Yes, that would be nice. :-) Preferably a recipe that doesn't involve
>> Macports or Fink which some of us are allergic to.
>
> Yes, ditto the MacPorts/Fink allergy.
> What happened to the big-ass computer farm for Python which was
> being put together by someone at (I think) Michigan State?
That sounds a lot like Snakebite (www.snakebite.org), which is still...
uhhh, a work in progress ;-) We've run into an issue recently that's
thwarted progress, but that'l
Michael Foord wrote:
> > Isn't that just a matter of having the recipe written down somewhere?
> >
>
> Yes, that would be nice. :-) Preferably a recipe that doesn't involve
> Macports or Fink which some of us are allergic to.
Yes, ditto the MacPorts/Fink allergy.
All we need is a script, r
On 14 April 2010 17:04, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> From the RM perspective, what I would really like to see is updates to
> the release.py script to check dependencies and automate as much as possible,
> as well as updates to PEP 101 for any process steps that can't be automated.
>
> This goes for both
On 14/04/2010 18:01, s...@pobox.com wrote:
Michael> Mac users definitely *do* expect installers. Building Python
Michael> requires, I believe, the XCode development tools to be
Michael> installed.
XCode is free, and I suspect many people have it (I do).
Sure - but probabl
Michael> Mac users definitely *do* expect installers. Building Python
Michael> requires, I believe, the XCode development tools to be
Michael> installed.
XCode is free, and I suspect many people have it (I do).
Michael> Even then, building a full version of Python - with *all* th
On Apr 14, 2010, at 10:51 AM, s...@pobox.com wrote:
>Steve> Why is it unavoidable that the Mac build will languish behind
>Steve> others? Are we supporting MacOs or aren't we? If we are, why
>Steve> isn't the creation of the build a part of the release process?
>
>Steve> Clearly i
Ned> ... since there are no OS X buildbots that test that configuration.
Ned> But, at the moment, there aren't any OS X buildbots at all, are
Ned> there? That *is* something that the PSF could help with
What happened to the big-ass computer farm for Python which was being put
tog
On 14/04/2010 17:41, Michael Foord wrote:
[snip...]
A Mac OS X machine (and location to keep it) for the buildbots is a
*big* need however.
At least two. You want Leopard and Snow Leopard, too.
Well - an XServe that we can run virtualisation on would be the
*ideal* solution. I think the X s
Steve> I do think it makes us look bad to have one supported platform
Steve> lag the others, but it wasn't obvious to me whether hardware
Steve> alone was the reason. If it is, the fix should be relatively
Steve> simple.
I can't believe it's a hardware issue. Probably half the pe
Steve> Why is it unavoidable that the Mac build will languish behind
Steve> others? Are we supporting MacOs or aren't we? If we are, why
Steve> isn't the creation of the build a part of the release process?
Steve> Clearly it's not a priority given that nobody has seen fit to (or
On 14/04/2010 17:36, Bill Janssen wrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
Building the Mac installer requires volunteer time which I'm not sure
that more hardware will fix - compiling a full build of Python for Mac
OS X (with all the Python modules like Tkinter etc) requires expertise
which only a few
Michael Foord wrote:
> Building the Mac installer requires volunteer time which I'm not sure
> that more hardware will fix - compiling a full build of Python for Mac
> OS X (with all the Python modules like Tkinter etc) requires expertise
> which only a few people have.
That's nuts. Why isn't t
Ned Deily wrote:
> In article <4bc54f4f.4090...@v.loewis.de>,
> "Martin v. Lowis" wrote:
>
> > > Wasn't that problem fixed weeks ago? The installer image has been
> > > available there since several days after the release. And the link
> > > seems fine now.
> >
> > The inherent problem re
Michael Foord wrote:
> Yes, I mean on the release page. The issue is that the download links on
> the sidebar / front page go straight to the latest release page. If
> there isn't yet a Mac installer available, and no alternative link to
> get the previous version, it leaves Mac users with no obvio
On Apr 14, 2010, at 06:39 AM, C. Titus Brown wrote:
>Separately, I'd be happy to put forward a proposal to the PSF to fund RMs and
>their lieutenants with a Mac or a PC, whichever they needed to keep things
>moving. It's the least "we" can do, IMO, and hardware is just not that
>expensive compare
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 07:36:25AM +0200, "Martin v. L?wis" wrote:
> >> In a wider sense of "to support", MacOS is certainly supported by
> >> Python. There is everything in the source code that you need to make
> >> Python run on a Mac. Just download the sources and compile them yourself.
> >>
> >
On 14/04/2010 13:58, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Apr 14, 2010, at 02:45 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
Can we amend that to having some placeholder text saying that the Mac
installer is not yet available and a link to the previous available
version please. That can then be replaced with the normal lin
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 06:33:03AM -0400, Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Martin v. L?wis wrote:
> > Tres Seaver wrote:
> >> Steve Holden wrote:
> >>> Why is it unavoidable that the Mac build will languish behind others?
> >>> Are we supporting MacOs or are
On Apr 14, 2010, at 02:45 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
>Can we amend that to having some placeholder text saying that the Mac
>installer is not yet available and a link to the previous available
>version please. That can then be replaced with the normal link once the
>Mac installer is uploaded.
Yo
On 14/04/2010 13:46, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Apr 14, 2010, at 10:56 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
The problem is the process that creates a new release with a 404 link to
the Mac installer with no explanation. The 2.6.5 release (as always)
caused several requests to webmaster from Mac users unabl
On Apr 14, 2010, at 10:56 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
>The problem is the process that creates a new release with a 404 link to
>the Mac installer with no explanation. The 2.6.5 release (as always)
>caused several requests to webmaster from Mac users unable to download
>Python - which is a further
On 14 April 2010 07:37, Paul Rudin wrote:
> "Martin v. Löwis" writes:
>
>> The major difference in the "do it yourself" attitude is that Mac user
>> get a compiler for free, as part of the operating system release,
>> whereas for Windows, they have to pay for it (leaving alone VS Express
>> for t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Tres Seaver wrote:
>> Steve Holden wrote:
>>> Why is it unavoidable that the Mac build will languish behind others?
>>> Are we supporting MacOs or aren't we? If we are, why isn't the creation
>>> of the build a part of the rele
On 14/04/2010 07:17, Steve Holden wrote:
[snip...]
In a wider sense of "to support", MacOS is certainly supported by
Python. There is everything in the source code that you need to make
Python run on a Mac. Just download the sources and compile them yourself.
And yet we don't regard the
On 14/04/2010 06:13, Ned Deily wrote:
In article,
Steve Holden wrote:
Why is it unavoidable that the Mac build will languish behind others?
Are we supporting MacOs or aren't we? If we are, why isn't the creation
of the build a part of the release process?
Clearly it's not a priority giv
On 14/04/2010 07:11, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
Why is it unavoidable that the Mac build will languish behind others?
Because of lack of volunteers, and expertise (i.e. the experts lack time).
That doesn't explain why we leave a broken link in place when we do
major releases - for da
In article <4bc54f4f.4090...@v.loewis.de>,
"Martin v. Lowis" wrote:
> > Wasn't that problem fixed weeks ago? The installer image has been
> > available there since several days after the release. And the link
> > seems fine now.
>
> The inherent problem remains. There is no binary for 2.7b1
"Martin v. Löwis" writes:
> The major difference in the "do it yourself" attitude is that Mac user
> get a compiler for free, as part of the operating system release,
> whereas for Windows, they have to pay for it (leaving alone VS Express
> for the moment).
JOOI why ignore the express versions
>> In a wider sense of "to support", MacOS is certainly supported by
>> Python. There is everything in the source code that you need to make
>> Python run on a Mac. Just download the sources and compile them yourself.
>>
> And yet we don't regard the Windows release as complete until you have
> bui
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> Why is it unavoidable that the Mac build will languish behind others?
>
> Because of lack of volunteers, and expertise (i.e. the experts lack time).
>
>> Are we supporting MacOs or aren't we?
>
> We aren't. Strictly speaking, "we" (python-dev) "support" nothing (in
> th
> Wasn't that problem fixed weeks ago? The installer image has been
> available there since several days after the release. And the link
> seems fine now.
The inherent problem remains. There is no binary for 2.7b1, for example.
The last binaries produced in the 2.7 testing process were for 2.
Tres Seaver wrote:
> Steve Holden wrote:
>> Why is it unavoidable that the Mac build will languish behind others?
>> Are we supporting MacOs or aren't we? If we are, why isn't the creation
>> of the build a part of the release process?
>
>> Clearly it's not a priority given that nobody has seen fi
> Why is it unavoidable that the Mac build will languish behind others?
Because of lack of volunteers, and expertise (i.e. the experts lack time).
> Are we supporting MacOs or aren't we?
We aren't. Strictly speaking, "we" (python-dev) "support" nothing (in
the sense that "we" can promise a suppo
In article ,
Steve Holden wrote:
> Why is it unavoidable that the Mac build will languish behind others?
> Are we supporting MacOs or aren't we? If we are, why isn't the creation
> of the build a part of the release process?
>
> Clearly it's not a priority given that nobody has seen fit to (or
Tres Seaver wrote:
> Steve Holden wrote:
>> Why is it unavoidable that the Mac build will languish behind others?
>> Are we supporting MacOs or aren't we? If we are, why isn't the creation
>> of the build a part of the release process?
>
>> Clearly it's not a priority given that nobody has seen fi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Holden wrote:
> Why is it unavoidable that the Mac build will languish behind others?
> Are we supporting MacOs or aren't we? If we are, why isn't the creation
> of the build a part of the release process?
>
> Clearly it's not a priority given t
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
