On 20-apr-2006, at 0:53, Christopher Barker wrote: > Bob Ippolito wrote: >> The libs should all be statically linked to the extensions, they >> shouldn't be separate in the installer. > > Ronald Oussoren wrote: >> I'd prefer to have fully self contained packages, and preferably >> eggs at that. Having a shared libary makes it *harder* to >> independendly >> update extensions using libpng or libfreetype. > > No one answered my question directly, but both Bob and Ronald have > spoken: > > It's better for each package to statically link any libs it needs > (unless Apple provides them), even though that means that a given > python > program may well end up using three copies of the same lib. > > Just to be totally clear: Is there any problem with the same program > using three slightly different versions of the same lib?
Thanks to two-level namespaces that shouldn't be a problem unless two extensions share datastructures from a library. An example of this are the curses and panel extensions in the stdlib, both link to libcurses and they share datastructures from curses. You'll see a hard crash when those extensions are staticly linked to curses. > >> I'll have to package up my package build script one of these days ;-) > > What does it do? Something different than bdist_mpkg ? Its one level higher: a script that uses bdist_egg and bdist_mpkg to build binary packages given a list of recipes. That makes it a lot easier to tweak the build process or rebuild packages when the libraries they use are changed. Its the result of a pet peeve: I like binary packages on pythonmac.org, but don't like the fact that most of them seem to build by hand and that some required manual prodding to get them to work. Ronald _______________________________________________ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig
