On 21 Nov, 2007, at 20:59, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
> BTW. The first part of the fix is changing '<' to '>=' in the first > test. That doesn't fix the issue though, the config/Makefile in > Apple's Python.framework isn't configured for building universal > binaries. > > And to make matters even worse: I'm pretty sure that setuptools used > to know that 'fat' builds are compatible with 'i386' and 'ppc' > architectures (at least on OSX), but that code no longer seems to be > there. > > I'll see if I can check in a fix for the bogus if-statement tomorrow > morning (both in the trunk and the 2.5 branch), that way python 2.5.2 > will at least behave correctly. I don't know if have time to work on a > patch for setuptools though. > > I'll have to contact PJE about universal builds vs. setuptools anyway > (through distutils-sig) to discuss how to deal with 4-way universal > eggs. > What is the status on this issue? Can I safely assume that Python 2.5.2 and Python 2.6 will be able to produce and consume eggs correctly on Mac OS X? Is there a bug tracker where I can check the status of this issue? For reference, here is the tracker entry in the allmydata.org tahoe issue tracker: http://allmydata.org/trac/tahoe/ticket/212 Regards, Zooko -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/does-pkg_resources-think-that-%22macosx-10.3%22-is-incompatible-with-10.5--tp13865060p14372568.html Sent from the Python - pythonmac-sig mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig
