In article ,
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
> On 27 Feb, 2009, at 1:57, Ned Deily wrote:
>
> > In article ,
> > "Russell E. Owen" wrote:
> >> I want to follow up on this a bit. In the past if the Mac Python
> >> installer was built on a machine that did NOT have a locally
> >> installed
> >> Tcl/Tk
> Do Python 2.6 and 3.0 support building with Tcl/Tk 8.5?
Yes, that works fine. The Windows binaries ship with 8.5,
and there weren't any complaints (in this respect).
Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python
On 27 Feb, 2009, at 1:57, Ned Deily wrote:
In article ,
"Russell E. Owen" wrote:
I want to follow up on this a bit. In the past if the Mac Python
installer was built on a machine that did NOT have a locally
installed
Tcl/Tk then it would fail to work with a locally installed Tcl/Tk:
Python
In article ,
"Russell E. Owen" wrote:
> I want to follow up on this a bit. In the past if the Mac Python
> installer was built on a machine that did NOT have a locally installed
> Tcl/Tk then it would fail to work with a locally installed Tcl/Tk:
> Python would segfault when trying to use Tkin
In article ,
Ned Deily wrote:
> Speaking of an OS X installer for 3.0.1, over the last few weeks I have
> been working on tidying up the OS X installer build process. While the
> basic OS X build/installer process is good, some cruft has accumulated
> over the past years and a number of most
In article <6fc960b6-7723-4887-9342-fac4d0c93...@mac.com>,
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
> I'll be at Pycon and part of post-pycon sprint days (I'm flying back
> on april 1st). I had already planned to try to get a mac-related
> sprint going at pycon, I've added work on this on the list of possible
In article
,
Alex Martelli wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 3:22 AM, Ned Deily wrote:
>...
> > have done complete and thorough testing. (In particular, I have no
> > access to a G5 for 64-bit PPC testing.)
> I have a PowerMac G5 at home and I'll be glad to run tests if it
> helps.
Thanks,
On 14 Feb, 2009, at 20:15, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
On 14 Feb, 2009, at 19:04, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
A single installer could support both 32-bit on 10.4 and 64-bit on
10.5, but I don't think that's very useful because there are
changes
in the low-level unix API's th
In article <499723cd.80...@v.loewis.de>,
"Martin v. Lowis" wrote:
> > That's fine as long as the distutils issue is resolved.
> I don't think this should be a prerequisite. As Ronald says: no fix
> without a bug report; if the system is capable of building the extension
> correctly, it should do
> That's fine as long as the distutils issue is resolved.
I don't think this should be a prerequisite. As Ronald says: no fix
without a bug report; if the system is capable of building the extension
correctly, it should do so (so it's a bug and fixes can be backported
to 2.6)
Regards,
Martin
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
> On 14 Feb, 2009, at 19:04, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>
>>> A single installer could support both 32-bit on 10.4 and 64-bit on
>>> 10.5, but I don't think that's very useful because there are changes
>>> in the low-level unix API's that could result in different behaviour
>
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 3:22 AM, Ned Deily wrote:
...
> have done complete and thorough testing. (In particular, I have no
> access to a G5 for 64-bit PPC testing.)
I have a PowerMac G5 at home and I'll be glad to run tests if it
helps. (It runs 10.5: "family pack" licenses are cheap, so I'v
On 14 Feb, 2009, at 19:44, Ned Deily wrote:
In article <499707a0.7000...@v.loewis.de>,
"Martin v. Lowis" wrote:
That said, the difference between a binary capable of running on
10.4+ and one running 10.3+ is minimal. I introduced weak-linking
for
a number of symbols that are not present on
In article <878wo8swxe@xemacs.org>,
"Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote:
> Guido van Rossum writes:
>
> > Actually I expect that to be fairly common among people who are not so
> > much into technology, strapped for funds but appreciative of quality,
> > bought an expensive Mac once expecting it
On 14 Feb, 2009, at 19:04, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
A single installer could support both 32-bit on 10.4 and 64-bit on
10.5, but I don't think that's very useful because there are changes
in the low-level unix API's that could result in different behaviour
of a 32-bit and 64-bit script on the sam
In article <499707a0.7000...@v.loewis.de>,
"Martin v. Lowis" wrote:
> > That said, the difference between a binary capable of running on
> > 10.4+ and one running 10.3+ is minimal. I introduced weak-linking for
> > a number of symbols that are not present on 10.3.9 in the 2.5
> > timeframe and th
Guido van Rossum writes:
> Actually I expect that to be fairly common among people who are not so
> much into technology, strapped for funds but appreciative of quality,
> bought an expensive Mac once expecting it would last a long time, and
> are hanging on to it until it dies (which could be
> A single installer could support both 32-bit on 10.4 and 64-bit on
> 10.5, but I don't think that's very useful because there are changes
> in the low-level unix API's that could result in different behaviour
> of a 32-bit and 64-bit script on the same system. In general 10.5 has
> much saner U
On 14 Feb, 2009, at 13:05, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
2. Release an installer built for 10.4 and higher.
pros: one size fits all
cons: no 64-bit support, known bugs in 10.4 wrt locale support, etc
Why is it that such an installer couldn't include 64-bit support?
Wouldn't 10.4 just ignore arc
On 14 Feb, 2009, at 12:22, Ned Deily wrote:
Speaking of an OS X installer for 3.0.1, over the last few weeks I
have
been working on tidying up the OS X installer build process. While
the
basic OS X build/installer process is good, some cruft has accumulated
over the past years and a number
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 3:54 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> I would suppose most folks who are running 10.4 even today are "cranks
> like me, baby, we were born to fuss!" Ahem, anyway, I suspect
> people who care that much about stability are generally old-school
> types who are willing to roll
> (This may well have
> been discussed before so my apologies if I am covering old ground here.)
There might have been discussions on pythonmac lists, but no recent ones
on python-dev, AFAIR.
> The last Apple point release of 10.3 was in 4/2005. 10.4 was also
> released then. [...] Needless t
Ned Deily writes:
> I see three plausible options:
>
> 1. Release an installer built for 10.5 and higher.
>pros: delivers 32-support and 64-support;
>cons: prematurely disenfranchises 10.4 users
+0 This would bother me; I have a couple of older Macs that run 10.4.
But it's acceptabl
Speaking of an OS X installer for 3.0.1, over the last few weeks I have
been working on tidying up the OS X installer build process. While the
basic OS X build/installer process is good, some cruft has accumulated
over the past years and a number of mostly minor issues arose due to the
3.x spl
24 matches
Mail list logo
