[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And so I suspect this approach (compiling sources yourself) can shield
people from this ugly mess, if they can build Python 2.4 and the
extensions and have them (core and extension) use one and the same
run-time library. But indeed this might be an issue for those who [1]
use MinGW as their first choice and [2] cannot or won't bother to build
their Python and/or extensions from sources, and hence have to rely on
binary distributions.
I encourage anyone who gets further into solving the "How do I use
MinGW to build Python2.4 (and later) standard-distribution compatible
modules (.pyd s)?" question to share any clues they have. The MS
free compiler is useful to many, but not all of us.
I expect that MinGW is the most frequent choice for making Python
modules in the "free compiler outside of MS" universe. Let's make
that one work well, and (once we've done that) we can pass the lessons
on for other compiler is desired.
--Scott David Daniels
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
p.s. I am able (and willing) to use the MS free compiler, but I have
sympathy for those who aren't. I'd like to see it possible to use
_lots_ of different compilers, but we are at the beginning of the
problem, not the end. If Intel's compiler is as much faster than
MS's as it used to be, I may eventually wind up using theirs anyway.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
