In article <78d65bdb-ab9c-4e8d-9440-4d071d3d8...@activestate.com>, Sridhar Ratnakumar <sridh...@activestate.com> wrote: >>[...] > However, I see all three variants (32, 64, and 2-way) in the default 2.6.6c1 > install (i.e., internal ActivePython build, though this is likely the case > for the python.org's 10.5 installer as well): > > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root admin 12644 10 Aug 15:30 > /Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/2.6/bin/python2.6-32 > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root admin 12680 10 Aug 15:30 > /Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/2.6/bin/python2.6-64 > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root admin 24968 10 Aug 15:30 > /Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/2.6/bin/python2.6-all > > But bin/python2.6 itself links to python2.6-32. What about changing that to > python2.6-all - thus leaving the choice of arch to OS loader instead of the > Python's build system?
Off the top of my head (without testing it), I think that would lead to a potentially somewhat confusing situation where "bin/python2.6" means 32-bit on 10.5 but 64-bit (or 32-bit, depending on the machine) on 10.6, with no possibility to override except by using the explicit python2.6-32 or python2.6-64 forms anyway. Plus there is still the issue of Tk 8.4 vs 8.5: do you have a non-X 64-bit Tk that works on both 10.5 and 10.6? As for 2.6.6, it would be a bit of a moot point if Ronald doesn't plan to provide a 64-bit python.org installer for 2.6.6 as there haven't been any for earlier 2.6.x releases. Of course, ActiveState and the other distributors of OS X installers could choose otherwise and, if so, patch it accordingly. My opinion is that there are enough loose ends that it is better to focus on 64-bit support on 2.7/3.2 and on 10.6 (and higher) only. -- Ned Deily, n...@acm.org _______________________________________________ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/Pythonmac-SIG
