On 5-Jan-10, at 7:02 PM, Christopher Barker wrote: >> Pretty sure the python.org binaries are 32-bit only. I still think >> it's sensible to prefer the > > waiting the rest of this sentence.. ;-)
I had meant to say 'sensible to prefer the Python.org version' though in reality I'm a little miffed that Python.org isn't providing Ron's 4- way binaries, since he went to the trouble of adding support for building them. Grumble grumble. >> I'm not really a fan of packages polluting /usr/local, I'd rather the >> tree appear /opt/packagename > > well, /opt has kind of been co-opted by macports. I'd forgotten about that. >> or /usr/local/packagename instead, for >> ease of removal > > wxPython gets put entirely into: > > /usr/local/lib/wxPython-unicode-2.10.8 > > which isn't bad. Ah, yeah, that isn't bad either. >> but the general approach of "stash somewhere and put >> a .pth in both site-packages" seems fine to me. > > OK -- what about simply punting and doing two builds: one 32 bit, and > one 64 bit. I wonder if we need 64bit PPC at all? I know I'm running > 64 > bit hardware, but never ran a 64 bit OS on it -- I wonder if anyone > is? I've built for ppc64 before, and in fact discovered a long-standing bug in the way ppc64 was detected. The fact that nobody found it before me is probably evidence that it is nearly never used. It could be useful in a minority of situations but I don't think it's going to be worth it for most people. David _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
