On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Bob Ippolito wrote:
> > 2. When I install a bdist-made package, the files have the owner of
> > the user that built the package not the user installing the package,
> > even though no root authorization is required.
> bdist_mpkg always finds the deepest installation location
On Jun 3, 2005, at 11:24 PM, Nick Matsakis wrote:
>
> I'm playing around with bdist_mpkg and have some questions. If
> these get
> answered, I promise to put them on the wiki:
>
> 1. Why does it build a meta-package with a single package inside?
> Why not
> just a package?
Each distutils t
I'm playing around with bdist_mpkg and have some questions. If these get
answered, I promise to put them on the wiki:
1. Why does it build a meta-package with a single package inside? Why not
just a package?
2. When I install a bdist-made package, the files have the owner of the
user that buil
On Jun 3, 2005, at 3:30 PM, has wrote:
> Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
>
>> There are three situations you should be concerned with:
>> 1. Python 2.3.0 on Mac OS X 10.3
>> 2. Python 2.3.5 on Mac OS X 10.4
>> 3. Python 2.4.x on either
>>
>> 1 and 2 can be dealt with by a single package, built on Mac OS X
On Jun 3, 2005, at 3:22 PM, Nick Matsakis wrote:
>
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
>
>> I don't think that's worth the effort. Someone who goes through the
>> effort of downloading a python 2.4.1 can also download a seperate
>> installer for appscript-for-python2.4 (and every other
On Jun 3, 2005, at 3:20 PM, Nick Matsakis wrote:
>
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
>
>> Python extensions/packages don't and can't currently do things the
>> Mac way, trying to shoehorn it into the Mac way before it's ready
>> just causes unnecessary hassle for the developer and the u
Bob Ippolito wrote:
>There are three situations you should be concerned with:
>1. Python 2.3.0 on Mac OS X 10.3
>2. Python 2.3.5 on Mac OS X 10.4
>3. Python 2.4.x on either
>
>1 and 2 can be dealt with by a single package, built on Mac OS X 10.3
>with bdist_mpkg installed for Python 2.3.0
>
>3 ca
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
> I don't think that's worth the effort. Someone who goes through the
> effort of downloading a python 2.4.1 can also download a seperate
> installer for appscript-for-python2.4 (and every other package they like
> to use with python 2.4).
That's the sa
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Bob Ippolito wrote:
> Python extensions/packages don't and can't currently do things the
> Mac way, trying to shoehorn it into the Mac way before it's ready
> just causes unnecessary hassle for the developer and the user. You
> should just do it the way that everyone else doe
On Jun 3, 2005, at 2:30 PM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
> On 3-jun-2005, at 23:02, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
>> I can effectively guarantee that any Python 2.3.x packages are going
>> to break on Mac OS X 10.5,
>>
>
> Why are you so sure Py2.3 packages will break on OS X 10.5? Is it that
> 10.5 is so lo
On 3-jun-2005, at 21:12, Nick Matsakis wrote:
> I was also thinking it might be nice if Python
> 2.4.1 could be installed after appscript and it would "just work"
> without
> any additional effort.
I don't think that's worth the effort. Someone who goes through the
effort
of downloading a p
On 3-jun-2005, at 23:02, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
> I can effectively guarantee that any Python 2.3.x packages are going
> to break on Mac OS X 10.5,
Why are you so sure Py2.3 packages will break on OS X 10.5? Is it that
10.5 is so long away that Py2.3 will no longer be supported by the
python.org
On Jun 3, 2005, at 12:12 PM, Nick Matsakis wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
>
>> An installer, as built by bdist_mpkg, won't install anything unless
>> Python is where it expects it to be. Thus, it's not possible to
>> install into a framework that doesn't exist.
>
> Here's t
Seems to run fine on 10.3.9 with python 2.4.1 installed. I opened a
few files and the editor seems fine. I did not test extensively but
it looks good so far.
At 2:57 PM -0400 6/3/05, Kevin Walzer wrote:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA1
>
>
>Chris Barker wrote:
>| Kevin Walzer wrot
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Bob Ippolito wrote:
> An installer, as built by bdist_mpkg, won't install anything unless
> Python is where it expects it to be. Thus, it's not possible to
> install into a framework that doesn't exist.
Here's the experience that I was hoping for: User installs appscript
bin
On Jun 3, 2005, at 11:57 AM, Kevin Walzer wrote:
> Chris Barker wrote:
> | Kevin Walzer wrote:
> |
> |> I'm now also supporting Tiger only.
> |
> |
> | ouch! Darn, this is disappointing. It will be a quite a while
> 'till most
> | people are running Tiger. Is there any chance of sticking with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Barker wrote:
| Kevin Walzer wrote:
|
|> I'm now also supporting Tiger only.
|
|
| ouch! Darn, this is disappointing. It will be a quite a while 'till most
| people are running Tiger. Is there any chance of sticking with Panther?
Well, actually
Forwarded fyi:
>From: "Ivan R. Judson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: New Mac Research Site
>Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 11:21:26 -0500
>Organization: Futures Laboratory
>
>There's a new community website that I'm helping get started. It's
>http://www.macresearch.org/; it's supposed to be a research
>alt
On Jun 3, 2005, at 11:05 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
> Kevin Walzer wrote:
>
>> I'm now also supporting Tiger only.
>>
>
> ouch! Darn, this is disappointing. It will be a quite a while 'till
> most
> people are running Tiger. Is there any chance of sticking with
> Panther?
> My understanding is t
Kevin Walzer wrote:
> I'm now also supporting Tiger only.
ouch! Darn, this is disappointing. It will be a quite a while 'till most
people are running Tiger. Is there any chance of sticking with Panther?
My understanding is that anything built for Panther will run on Tiger
anyway.
In any case,
On Jun 3, 2005, at 5:00 AM, Jon Rosebaugh wrote:
> On 6/2/05, Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The older ones probably work if you also install TigerPython23Compat
>> -- however, you're better off just using Python 2.4.1. Forget about
>> Python 2.3.
>>
>
> Okay... Do I have to do any
On Jun 3, 2005, at 2:37 AM, has wrote:
> Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
>
>> An installer, as built by bdist_mpkg, won't install anything unless
>> Python is where it expects it to be. Thus, it's not possible to
>> install into a framework that doesn't exist.
>>
>
> Interjecting a moment, the appscript i
On 6/2/05, Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The older ones probably work if you also install TigerPython23Compat
> -- however, you're better off just using Python 2.4.1. Forget about
> Python 2.3.
Okay... Do I have to do anything special to avoid breaking things? I
understand some Apple
Bob Ippolito wrote:
>An installer, as built by bdist_mpkg, won't install anything unless
>Python is where it expects it to be. Thus, it's not possible to
>install into a framework that doesn't exist.
Interjecting a moment, the appscript installer needs to carry both 2.3 and 2.4
versions of ha
24 matches
Mail list logo
