Ronald Oussoren <ronaldousso...@mac.com> writes: > On 23 Jul, 2010, at 11:54, Barry Warsaw wrote: > >> >> What about the architecture (i386, amd64)? With every increase in length I >> start to get more concerned. We could encode the platform and architecture, >> but that gets into cryptic territory. OTOH, would you really co-install i386 >> and amd64 shared libraries on the same machine? (hello NFS ;). > > I don't need this, but then again I primarily use a platform where the vendor > has > a proper solution for having binaries for multiple architectures ;-)
Well, Apple doesn't prevent people from building 32/64 bit-only python installations. Doesn't that give you 3 choices i386, amd64, fat?? And you can have framework or non-framework builds. Doesn't anybody else think this is lost work for very little gain? My /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages directory consumes 200MB on disk. I couldn't care less if my /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages consumed the same amount of disk space... - Ralf _______________________________________________ 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
