On 3-jun-2005, at 15:22, Nick Matsakis wrote: > > On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Ronald Oussoren wrote: > > >> I don't think that's worth the effort. Someone who goes through the >> effort of downloading a python 2.4.1 can also download a seperate >> installer for appscript-for-python2.4 (and every other package >> they like >> to use with python 2.4). >> > > That's the same as saying "someone who does some work can do more > work". > Why should this person do more work when they don't have to? Why > don't we > just take the half-cent worth of disk space and install the 2.4 > binaries > while we're there?
One reason is that I might want to use different versions of packags in Python 2.3 and 2.4. Another reason is that noone else does this and you will therefore confuse some people by having a single installer that supports python 2.3 and 2.4. > > It's great that Python ships on Macs now, but the python "add-on" > experience is really weak. If someone wants to run the latest > python on > their Mac they have to sort through py23Compat, TigerPython23Compat, > TigerPython24Fix, PantherPythonFix, MacPythonPantherAddons and > figure out > which apply to their system. If we're taking the time to build an > installer package, then we shouldn't we spend the effort to make > sure our > users don't have to? To install bdist_mkpg on 10.4 I had to download > *three* different packages. Why is this necessary? It's necessary because nobody has bothered to build a batteries- included installer and PackMan is basically dead. Something like PackMan would be useful to have. There seem to be at least two attempts to build a python package manager at the moment, with some luck we'll just have to slap a nice GUI on top of one of them. Ronald _______________________________________________ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig
