Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] Python 2.4 on OS X 10.3.7

On 27 Dec 2004, at 15:53, John Ochiltree wrote: On 27 Dec 2004, at 11:51, Enrico Franchi wrote: John Ochiltree wrote: . I rebuilt python (adding --enable-readline , although I understand I should no longer have to do this) but still no success in python. I specified in CFLAGS where are the libs a

Re: [Python-Dev] Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] The versioning question...

Eric Nieuwland wrote: Would it be an idea to submit a PEP for extending the 'import' keyword? No. Normally, packages should aim for backwards compatibility, so that applications would only want to specify a minimum version, such as import xml assert xml.version_info > (0,8,2) If you really want sid

Re: [Python-Dev] Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] The versioning question...

Martin> If you really want side-by-side installation of different Martin> versions, and a mechanism to select between them, the package Martin> could support Martin> import xml_0_8_2 as xml Martin> IOW, "import-as" should be sufficient for what you want to achieve. That's mo

Re: [Python-Dev] Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] The versioning question...

On Dec 27, 2004, at 8:45 PM, Chris Barker wrote: The versioning system that wxPython now has is quite nice, and seems to fit most people's needs well. However, it's also quite new, and who know what problems will arise. For those interested, here's a synopsis. http://wiki.wxpython.org/index.cgi

Re: [Python-Dev] Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] The versioning question...

Martin v. Löwis wrote: No. Normally, packages should aim for backwards compatibility, so that applications would only want to specify a minimum version, such as import xml assert xml.version_info > (0,8,2) Well, yes, but life is not always so simple, and while, as a rule, version 2.3 should be bac

Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] The versioning question...

On Dec 27, 2004, at 5:29 PM, Chris Barker wrote: Eric Nieuwland wrote: Would it be an idea to submit a PEP for extending the 'import' keyword? As I mentioned, my read on this is that it's not going to happen at the python level, at least not for a while. This is based on various threads in c.l.p

Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] More testers needed: Fix installer

On Dec 27, 2004, at 2:53 PM, Jack Jansen wrote: On 27-dec-04, at 17:44, Bob Ippolito wrote: You can find the package at . The Makefile is missing the MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET=10.3 before the $(CC) .. which means that for most people, it won't

Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] The versioning question...

On Dec 27, 2004, at 5:29 PM, has wrote: Alas, that's weird and wobbly and completely paradoxical world of software for you. Most wonderfully pliable medium in the universe, yet constricted and bound by the inexorable weight of its own history. I suspect the only way to remain free is to be compl

Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] The versioning question...

>>> That doesn't fix the multiple versions problem. >> >> This is a big issue that the core Pythonistas don't seem to be >> interested in addressing. It's odd, because I think it's a no-brainer >> that python modules need to be versioned, and there needs to be a way >> to

Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] The versioning question...

Eric Nieuwland wrote: Would it be an idea to submit a PEP for extending the 'import' keyword? As I mentioned, my read on this is that it's not going to happen at the python level, at least not for a while. This is based on various threads in c.l.p, and maybe python-dev. So, while I still think i

Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] The versioning question...

Chris Barker wrote: That doesn't fix the multiple versions problem. This is a big issue that the core Pythonistas don't seem to be interested in addressing. It's odd, because I think it's a no-brainer that python modules need to be versioned, and there needs to be a way to have multiple versions

Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] The versioning question...

Hi all, On 27 dec 2004, at 19:27, Chris Barker wrote: Robin has added versioning to the latest wxPython, and I. for one am ecstatic. It works great for me. I am generally using 2.5.3, but have 2.4.2 installed, and a number of my apps depend on it (on Linux anyway, it's pretty useless on OS-X)

Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] More testers needed: Fix installer

On 27-dec-04, at 17:44, Bob Ippolito wrote: You can find the package at . The Makefile is missing the MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET=10.3 before the $(CC) .. which means that for most people, it won't compile extension modules, because not everyon

Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] More testers needed: Fix installer

On 27-dec-04, at 17:47, Michael Hudson wrote: On 27 Dec 2004, at 16:38, Bob Ippolito wrote: On Dec 27, 2004, at 11:31 AM, Michael Hudson wrote: But 10.3 is Panther, not Jaguar, right? Yes. That was rhetorical :) I'm not being completely thick, am I? The file should surely be called PantherPythonF

Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] The versioning question...

On Dec 27, 2004, at 1:27 PM, Chris Barker wrote: Bob Ippolito wrote: That doesn't fix the multiple versions problem. This is a big issue that the core Pythonistas don't seem to be interested in addressing. It's odd, because I think it's a no-brainer that python modules need to be versioned, and t

[Pythonmac-SIG] The versioning question...

Bob Ippolito wrote: That doesn't fix the multiple versions problem. This is a big issue that the core Pythonistas don't seem to be interested in addressing. It's odd, because I think it's a no-brainer that python modules need to be versioned, and there needs to be a way to have multiple versions

Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] More testers needed: Fix installer

On Dec 27, 2004, at 12:09 PM, Ronald Oussoren wrote: On 27-dec-04, at 17:44, Bob Ippolito wrote: On Dec 27, 2004, at 8:08 AM, Jack Jansen wrote: Ok, Bob, you win:-) I've created an installer package that replaces the Makefile after a simple test that you're actually running 10.3 and have that Make

Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] More testers needed: Fix installer

On 27-dec-04, at 17:44, Bob Ippolito wrote: On Dec 27, 2004, at 8:08 AM, Jack Jansen wrote: Ok, Bob, you win:-) I've created an installer package that replaces the Makefile after a simple test that you're actually running 10.3 and have that Makefile in the right place (i.e. didn't mess too much w

Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] More testers needed: Fix installer

On Dec 27, 2004, at 11:59 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote: On 27-dec-04, at 17:50, Bob Ippolito wrote: On Dec 27, 2004, at 11:47 AM, Michael Hudson wrote: On 27 Dec 2004, at 16:38, Bob Ippolito wrote: On Dec 27, 2004, at 11:31 AM, Michael Hudson wrote: But 10.3 is Panther, not Jaguar, right? Yes. That wa

Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] More testers needed: Fix installer

On 27-dec-04, at 17:50, Bob Ippolito wrote: On Dec 27, 2004, at 11:47 AM, Michael Hudson wrote: On 27 Dec 2004, at 16:38, Bob Ippolito wrote: On Dec 27, 2004, at 11:31 AM, Michael Hudson wrote: But 10.3 is Panther, not Jaguar, right? Yes. That was rhetorical :) I'm not being completely thick, am I?

Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] More testers needed: Fix installer

On Dec 27, 2004, at 11:47 AM, Michael Hudson wrote: On 27 Dec 2004, at 16:38, Bob Ippolito wrote: On Dec 27, 2004, at 11:31 AM, Michael Hudson wrote: But 10.3 is Panther, not Jaguar, right? Yes. That was rhetorical :) I'm not being completely thick, am I? The file should surely be called PantherP

Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] More testers needed: Fix installer

On 27 Dec 2004, at 16:38, Bob Ippolito wrote: On Dec 27, 2004, at 11:31 AM, Michael Hudson wrote: But 10.3 is Panther, not Jaguar, right? Yes. That was rhetorical :) I'm not being completely thick, am I? The file should surely be called PantherPythonFix.dmg. Cheers, mwh _

Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] More testers needed: Fix installer

On Dec 27, 2004, at 8:08 AM, Jack Jansen wrote: Ok, Bob, you win:-) I've created an installer package that replaces the Makefile after a simple test that you're actually running 10.3 and have that Makefile in the right place (i.e. didn't mess too much with your installation). If people could tes

Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] More testers needed: Fix installer

On Dec 27, 2004, at 11:31 AM, Michael Hudson wrote: Jack Jansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: On 27-dec-04, at 15:04, Michael Hudson wrote: Indeed you can, and it seems to work (tm) on Panther here, but I'm *reasonably* sure you have chosen the wrong name for the package :) Yeah, consider that a work

Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] More testers needed: Fix installer

Jack Jansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 27-dec-04, at 15:04, Michael Hudson wrote: >> Indeed you can, and it seems to work (tm) on Panther here, but I'm >> *reasonably* sure you have chosen the wrong name for the package :) > > Yeah, consider that a working title. I may call it "The Installer

Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] More testers needed: Fix installer

On 27. Dec 2004, at 14:08 Uhr, Jack Jansen wrote: Ok, Bob, you win:-) I've created an installer package that replaces the Makefile after a simple test that you're actually running 10.3 and have that Makefile in the right place (i.e. didn't mess too much with your installation). If people could t

Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] Python 2.4 on OS X 10.3.7

On 27 Dec 2004, at 11:51, Enrico Franchi wrote: John Ochiltree wrote: . I rebuilt python (adding --enable-readline , although I understand I should no longer have to do this) but still no success in python. I specified in CFLAGS where are the libs and includes (-L and -I for gcc). I used readlin

Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] More testers needed: Fix installer

On 27-dec-04, at 15:04, Michael Hudson wrote: Indeed you can, and it seems to work (tm) on Panther here, but I'm *reasonably* sure you have chosen the wrong name for the package :) Yeah, consider that a working title. I may call it "The Installer that makes Apple-Installed Python on 10.3 build cor

Re: [Pythonmac-SIG] More testers needed: Fix installer

Jack Jansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ok, Bob, you win:-) > > I've created an installer package that replaces the Makefile after a > simple test that you're actually running 10.3 and have that Makefile > in the right place (i.e. didn't mess too much with your installation). > > If people could

[Pythonmac-SIG] More testers needed: Fix installer

Ok, Bob, you win:-) I've created an installer package that replaces the Makefile after a simple test that you're actually running 10.3 and have that Makefile in the right place (i.e. didn't mess too much with your installation). If people could test this that'd be nice. Again, I'm especially in