Actually I would go for this. It should still be possible to build
Pygame for Python 2.3 on Windows. Basically only some unit test code and
the Windows dependency build stuff is now 2.4.
Lenard
Brian Fisher wrote:
I actually see more point in supporting 2.3 than 2.4
2.4 was a pretty worthle
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 1:23 AM, Casey Duncan wrote:
> On Dec 11, 2008, at 8:48 PM, Brian Fisher wrote:
> [..]
>>
>> ...In fact, I think a reasonable thing for pygame to do is say you want
>> support for 2.3? then here's an installer for 1.8.1, we kept it around just
>> for you.
>
> I think this i
On Dec 11, 2008, at 8:48 PM, Brian Fisher wrote:
[..]
...In fact, I think a reasonable thing for pygame to do is say you
want support for 2.3? then here's an installer for 1.8.1, we kept it
around just for you.
I think this is the right way to approach this. You need to use an old
version
It'd be nice if we could drop the pyobjc dependency :)
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Brian Fisher wrote:
> I'd be happy to add 2.6 to the automated builds of pygame for Mac OS X, but
> I haven't been able to figure out how to deal with PyObjC yet :(
>
> it doesn't install from source cause of
I'd be happy to add 2.6 to the automated builds of pygame for Mac OS X, but
I haven't been able to figure out how to deal with PyObjC yet :(
it doesn't install from source cause of some dependency error:
error: Could not find suitable distribution for
Requirement.parse('pyobjc-framework-XgridFound
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 6:53 PM, James Mills
wrote:
> I see no point in supporting older versions of
> the Python language/interpter/vm/etc
>
> One good reason to support older versions of the python language is cause
other extensions haven't supported the new versions yet. Users want to be
able t
hi,
It's about people using your programs -- not just about people making programs.
Using python 2.6 cuts out at least 3%* of the people who can use your
program. For some people this is important.
That's millions of computers, mostly older recycled computers. So for
people who care about the
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Brian Fisher
wrote:
> I actually see more point in supporting 2.3 than 2.4
>
> 2.4 was a pretty worthless release :)
I see no point in supporting older versions of
the Python language/interpter/vm/etc
Why ? It encourages lazy developers. Keep up boys :)
(And gir
I actually see more point in supporting 2.3 than 2.4
2.4 was a pretty worthless release :)
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 2:38 PM, James Mills
wrote:
> I honestly don't see any point in supporting
> python 2.3 at all, in fact I wouldn't even
> support python 2.4 but that's just me.
>
> cheers
> James
>
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 2:38 PM, James Mills
wrote:
> I honestly don't see any point in supporting
> python 2.3 at all, in fact I wouldn't even
> support python 2.4 but that's just me.
>
> cheers
> James
I second that.
I honestly don't see any point in supporting
python 2.3 at all, in fact I wouldn't even
support python 2.4 but that's just me.
cheers
James
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Charlie Nolan wrote:
> I think at this point, Pygame could drop official 2.3 support, but
> unofficially attempt to keep it
I think at this point, Pygame could drop official 2.3 support, but
unofficially attempt to keep it working as long as practical. If
Debian want to support new Pygame on their old version, they're
welcome to report bugs for anything that gets broken by accident.
That would avoid the unit testing h
This is not about removing Python 2.3 code. It is about new code,
particularly the unit test stuff. It is just tedious to keep checking if
some Python feature is 2.3 compatible when I no longer have 2.3 on my
machine.
Lenard
René Dudfield wrote:
hi,
the main reason for keeping 2.3 support
hi,
the main reason for keeping 2.3 support was to support the last ye
olde Debian stable I think... However they finally got their new
release out with 2.5 as the standard python (unfortunately they
released with a version of pygame from 2005). Plus the 2.3 python on
tiger OSX, and not requiring
I don't know about msvcr71.dll licensing. msvcr90.dll may be an even
stickier issue. A Python 2..6 version of py2exe was recently released
though.
I am not currently working on any Pygame extensions, just support stuff.
So I won't worry about maintaining Python 2.3 compatibility.
Lenard
B
Pygame already compiles and runs with Python 2.6. I've done this with
Windows, but have no access to OS X. So Pygame for Python 2.6 is
available to anyone who wants to build it. At least on a Unix system
their is no issues with C runtime compatibility.
Lenard
Bill Coderre wrote:
So Mac u
Actually, I'm pretty sure that I've got Python 2.5 installed on a OS X
10.2 machine. I remember that it was officially one OS X version
earlier than was supported, but it installed and runs just fine. I've
been building py2app+Pygame stuff on it.
-FM
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Joe Strout
On Dec 10, 2008, at 5:16 PM, Greg Ewing wrote:
Do we still need to keep Pygame Python 2.3 compatible. I believe
Python 2.3 shipped with Mac OS X Tiger. Is it still the OS X
default?
No, OS X (10.5) comes with 2.5.1.
Some people still use 10.4, though!
True. And that came with Python 2.3
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 01:16:37PM +1300, Greg Ewing wrote:
> Joe Strout wrote:
>
> >>Do we still need to keep Pygame Python 2.3 compatible. I believe
> >>Python 2.3 shipped with Mac OS X Tiger. Is it still the OS X default?
> >
> >No, OS X (10.5) comes with 2.5.1.
>
> Some people still use 10.4
Joe Strout wrote:
Do we still need to keep Pygame Python 2.3 compatible. I believe
Python 2.3 shipped with Mac OS X Tiger. Is it still the OS X default?
No, OS X (10.5) comes with 2.5.1.
Some people still use 10.4, though!
--
Greg
The only interesting thing about python 2.3 on windows is that it uses the
older MSVCRT60.dll and friends, which have shipped with all the windows
OS's, meaning that you don't need to redistribute the runtime dlls if you
build an exe with python 2.3.
That being said, I'm the type to really care ab
- Original Message -
From: "Joe Strout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Dec 10, 2008, at 1:52 PM, Lenard Lindstrom wrote:
Do we still need to keep Pygame Python 2.3 compatible. I believe
Python 2.3 shipped with Mac OS X Tiger. Is it still the OS X
default?
No, OS X (10.5) comes with 2.5.1.
O
l.org
> Subject: Re: [pygame] Do we still need Python 2.3 support from Pygame?
> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:02:26 -0700
>
>
> On Dec 10, 2008, at 1:52 PM, Lenard Lindstrom wrote:
>
> > Do we still need to keep Pygame Python 2.3 compatible. I believe
> > Python 2
On Dec 10, 2008, at 1:52 PM, Lenard Lindstrom wrote:
Do we still need to keep Pygame Python 2.3 compatible. I believe
Python 2.3 shipped with Mac OS X Tiger. Is it still the OS X default?
No, OS X (10.5) comes with 2.5.1.
Best,
- Joe
Hi,
Do we still need to keep Pygame Python 2.3 compatible. I believe Python
2.3 shipped with Mac OS X Tiger. Is it still the OS X default? How about
other operating systems? The testing framework is Python 2.4, using the
subprocess module. But what about the core Pygame code? I am getting
tir
25 matches
Mail list logo
