On 19-apr-2006, at 18:49, Christopher Barker wrote: > Bob Ippolito wrote: >> *ALWAYS* prefer convenience over space. Never make separate >> distributions for i386 and PPC. Simplicity is key. > > Absolutely. > >> I will no longer accept single-architecture packages for >> pythonmac.org/packages except under special circumstances > > However... Right now, we don't have Universal packages for most > things. > This creates a difficult situation for folks, particularly those on > Intel Macs. It is a serious challenge to build Universal packages, at > least for those packages that rely on third party libs (PIL, > Matplotlib, > wxPython....)
I'll post the script I'm using to build universal packages this weekend. I have recipes for the software I'm using and several other. That includes PIL (including jpeg, tif and freetype support). > About those libs: > > As it is a challenge to build universal libs, and a bunch of common > python packages require the same libs, I'd love to see a repository of > Universal libs for use with Python packages. It is actually not very hard to build univeral libraries for most software. I'd really prefer to ship addon packages as standalone eggs. > > My suggestion: > > A ExtraLibs.mpkg, right there with the packages on pythonmac.org that > includes Universal shared libs required by some common packages. They > could perhaps be installed in the Python Framework, so they won't > interfere with anything else. > > a) is this possible? yes > b) is this a good idea? no. This is an arbitrary selection of libraries, why these and not others? Ronald _______________________________________________ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig
