On Apr 28, 2005, at 5:13 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 28, 2005, at 5:59, Dethe Elza wrote:
I'm using 2.4.1 and will be generally be running the latest stable release. Using py2app makes it so convenient to just include the Python I'm working with, and it's now easy to install the latest Python, there's less and less reason to fiddle around with older versions.It depends on what you distribute. If it's double-clickable applications, I agree. But I distribute libraries and command-line tools for /usr/local/bin. Unless I have overlooked something, py2app can't do those, and I imagine it would be difficult to build command-line tools that would find a Python version inside an application bundle at an unknown location. So if I go for 2.4, I have to tell all my users to install 2.4 first. That by itself wouldn't perhaps be a big issue (one package more to install), but there is also the problem that if some libraries are provided for 2.3 and others for 2.4, much of the attraction of Python for occasional programmers would be gone.
So stop providing libraries for 2.3, eliminate the confusion, and have them install that one extra package.
In short, I expect to have to offer packages for both 2.3 and 2.4 and explain the difference to people who don't really care. I'd be happier if the Mac world could agree on a single Python version.
Well if it were my decision I'd say that people should stop caring about 2.3, because 2.4 is better in every way (except "they don't already have it") and more supported. 2.3 is more or less at the end of its life, it might have another minor update or two, but Mac users will probably never see them.
-bob
_______________________________________________ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig
