Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
My questions:
It appears that nobody has answered the questions, yet.
a) Why does the Python Foundation not provide additionally a binary
version, compiled with MinGW or another open-source compiler?
We don't have the resources to do that.
b) Why does the Python Foundation not ensure, that the python
source-code is directly compilable with MinGW?
In the past, we did not do that because we did not know how to do it.
With Python 2.4.1, we now had a contribution that should allow direct
compilation of extensions using MingW.
c) Why are the following efforts not _directly_ included in the python
source code base?
http://jove.prohosting.com/iwave/ipython/pyMinGW.html
I believe this was because it was never contributed to Python.
d) Is it really neccessary that I dive into such adventures, to be able
to do the most natural thing like: "developing python extensions with
MinGW"?
http://starship.python.net/crew/kernr/mingw32/Notes.html
No. These instructions are outdated.
e) Is there any official statement available regarding the msvcr71.dll
and other MS licensing issues?
[see several threads "[Python-Dev] Is msvcr71.dll re-redistributable?"]
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-February/thread.html
No, there isn't.
f) Are there any official (Python Foundation) statements / rationales
available, which explain why the MinGW compiler is unsupported, although
parts of the community obviously like to use it?
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/msg/dc3474e6c8053336
The official statement is that the MingW compiler is supported, indeed.
Regards,
Martin
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
