On Feb 9, 2006, at 8:09 PM, Rodney Somerstein wrote:
> At 1:20 PM -0800 2/9/06, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>> py2app is the solution for application packaging, and you must use
>> it with a third party Python installation (e.g. Python 2.4.1) in
>> order to come up with something that's redistributable
On Feb 9, 2006, at 8:07 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I want to manipulate iCal from the command line. Thanks to
> appscript it
> looks like I'll be able to do what I want.
>
> I wrote a simple skeleton script:
>
> #!/usr/bin/pythonw
Sounds like you're using OS X 10.3. It shipped with
At 1:39 PM -0800 2/9/06, Bill Janssen wrote:
>Great idea, Rodney. I think we probably need a number of pages like
>this, kind of an FAQ set. I think the main page should just cover one
>or two things (how to run python, how to upgrade), and lots of
>pointers to these pages. Each of these should
At 1:20 PM -0800 2/9/06, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>py2app is the solution for application packaging, and you must use
>it with a third party Python installation (e.g. Python 2.4.1) in
>order to come up with something that's redistributable and robust.
>If you happen to use the system Python, then
On 9-Feb-06, at 8:10 PM, Chris Barker wrote: Brendan Simons wrote: SPE is almost there, but still needs a binary install. Would it be there with a good installer?Maybe. However its under active development and changes frequently. BTW, "Open Terminal Here" is a nifty applet Here's another eas
I want to manipulate iCal from the command line. Thanks to appscript it
looks like I'll be able to do what I want.
I wrote a simple skeleton script:
#!/usr/bin/pythonw
"""
%(prog)s - manipulate iCal
"""
import sys
import os
import getopt
from appscript import
On Feb 9, 2006, at 7:24 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
>> Could a Mac ever ship with an
>>> acceptable pre-installed Python? If not, perhaps the solution for
>>> Apple is to move /usr/bin/python to some other spot, like
>>> /usr/libexec/, or some such place.
>>
>> The issue of not being able to produce
On Feb 9, 2006, at 7:35 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
>>> Exactly. the page we are working on should be just the main page.
>>> All
>>> the various suggestions for other sections are good, but should be
>>> Wiki
>>> pages, maintenance is much easier that way.
>>
>> It might be a good idea to highligh
> > Exactly. the page we are working on should be just the main page. All
> > the various suggestions for other sections are good, but should be
> > Wiki
> > pages, maintenance is much easier that way.
>
> It might be a good idea to highlight the really frequent FAQs and
> link to their answer
> Case in point. The other day I volunteered some time at the local
> elementary school and the computer teacher was looking for something to
> give to some more advanced 10 to 12 year olds. I told him that his
> Mac's all have python installed and it comes with a turtle graphics
> module. "
> Bill Janssen wrote:
> > I think here you are talking about a Mac app bundle, right? I think
> > that's probably right.
>
> It applies just as much to a script with a #! line that relies on
> installed packages. Do you really develop without any external packages?
Sure. I do a lot of text pro
> Could a Mac ever ship with an
> > acceptable pre-installed Python? If not, perhaps the solution for
> > Apple is to move /usr/bin/python to some other spot, like
> > /usr/libexec/, or some such place.
>
> The issue of not being able to produce redistributable applications
> still exists, and
Since we're going to manipulating the PATH with the installer, should
we still bother with the symlinks in /usr/local/bin? We definitely
want the Framework's bin dir on the PATH because that's where scripts
will be installed to... so the /usr/local/bin links seem a bit
redundant. If we do
I know the reason that I got confused is I do not know Mac/UNIX well.
Is there any good tutorial to read (I understand there are many but
just no idea where to start)?
Thanks,
Linda.
___
Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org
http://mail.pyth
On Feb 9, 2006, at 5:09 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:
>> "pythonw" invokes GUI applications, "python" invokes console
>> applications. When installing an extension, I don't type "pythonw
>> setup.py install."
>
> But would there be any harm if you did?
No
>> If we recommend that the user instal
On Feb 9, 2006, at 5:09 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:
>> Is there anyone from Apple even on this list?
>
> non one that has admitted it
I'm an Apple employee. I know there have been others on this list,
too, though I have no idea if they're still here. I don't maintain
Apple's python, and
On Feb 9, 2006, at 1:38 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
>> Python does not currently have an official Mac maintainer.
>
> Bingo! And no one has stepped up to document the amazing torrent of
> productive activity since Jack "retired". As a result, the useful
> pieces are scattered all over, the official
On Feb 9, 2006, at 6:56 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
>> If we make
>> the proposed PATH change script to the installer, we can ignore the
>> system Python just as easily as we could if it wasn't there at all.
>
> It is extremely difficult (almost impossible) to make such scripts
> work properly on Unix
Hi all,
Lots of comments on the whole thread
Bob Ippolito wrote:
> Nothing relevant comes with the system except for Terminal and
> TextEdit...
Which is a lousy editor for Python anyway.
Brendan Simons wrote:
> SPE is almost there, but still needs a binary install.
Would it be there wit
Christopher Barker wrote:
> matplotlib has a lot of C++ in it.
and there are binaries built for 2.4 on 10.3 on pythonmac.org, if that
helps.
-Chris
--
Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer
NOAA/OR&R/HAZMAT (206) 526-6959 voice
7600
On Feb 9, 2006, at 4:17 PM, Kevin Ollivier wrote:
> Hi Bob,
>
> On Feb 9, 2006, at 4:10 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> The issue of not being able to produce redistributable applications
>> still exists, and also backwards compatibility with previous versions
>> of Mac OS X.
>
> I haven'
Hi Bob,
On Feb 9, 2006, at 4:10 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
[snip]
> The issue of not being able to produce redistributable applications
> still exists, and also backwards compatibility with previous versions
> of Mac OS X.
I haven't had time to respond to your other emails yet, but I've seen
you
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
> That's not really a problem, I need some kind of test to determine if we
> can get away with loading C++ code compiled with g++-3.3 into a python
> build with gcc 4. Boost might also be an option for testing.
matplotlib has a lot of C++ in it.
-Chris
--
Christopher B
On Feb 9, 2006, at 3:56 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
>> If we ignore the vendor's interpreter then our documentation becomes
>> MUCH simpler as there will be one -- and preferably only one -- way
>> to do it: install a Python interpreter that is recent and can run the
>> full scope of Python applicati
> If we ignore the vendor's interpreter then our documentation becomes
> MUCH simpler as there will be one -- and preferably only one -- way
> to do it: install a Python interpreter that is recent and can run the
> full scope of Python applications.
I think I'm almost convinced on this point
> > It's the job of Fink or DarwinPorts to sustain their Python
> > communities. There are already too many choices, I'd really like to
> > avoid even more confusion.
>
> Perhaps this could be mentioned on the Bill's page to the effect that
> it's discouraged to use those sources.
Fine by m
On Feb 9, 2006, at 2:49 PM, I. Vinogradov wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 13:33:17 -0800
> Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> It's the job of Fink or DarwinPorts to sustain their Python
>> communities. There are already too many choices, I'd really like to
>> avoid even more confusion.
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 13:33:17 -0800
Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's the job of Fink or DarwinPorts to sustain their Python
> communities. There are already too many choices, I'd really like to
> avoid even more confusion.
Perhaps this could be mentioned on the Bill's page to th
On Feb 9, 2006, at 1:39 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
>> Now, what I really want to see added is something that explains how I
>> can write a program in Python on the Mac and create standalone
>> applications that can run on someone else's computer without them
>> having to install anything else.
>
> G
On Feb 9, 2006, at 1:48 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
>> It is useless to me.
>
> That's what I mean by parochial.
>
> Bob, I completely understand and sympathize with what you are saying
> here. And for your purposes, these are completely legitimate
> complaints.
I'd say pragmatic, not parochial.
> It is useless to me.
That's what I mean by parochial.
Bob, I completely understand and sympathize with what you are saying
here. And for your purposes, these are completely legitimate complaints.
But there are lots of "pure Unix" programs which it works quite well
for. I do a lot of text pro
> Now, what I really want to see added is something that explains how I
> can write a program in Python on the Mac and create standalone
> applications that can run on someone else's computer without them
> having to install anything else.
Great idea, Rodney. I think we probably need a number
On Feb 9, 2006, at 12:20 PM, I. Vinogradov wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 20:29:34 PST
> Bill Janssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I've made up a sample page, at
>> http://bill.janssen.org/new-macpython-page.html.
>
> What about other sources for python2.4 such as fink and darwinports?
> Will they
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 20:29:34 PST
Bill Janssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've made up a sample page, at
> http://bill.janssen.org/new-macpython-page.html.
What about other sources for python2.4 such as fink and darwinports?
Will they be frown upon or required to comply with framework
installatio
On Feb 9, 2006, at 12:09 PM, Rodney Somerstein wrote:
> At 8:29 PM -0800 2/8/06, Bill Janssen wrote:
>> I've made up a sample page, at
>> http://bill.janssen.org/new-macpython-page.html.
>>
>> This is the kind of thing I'd like to see replace the page at
>> http://www.python.org/download/download
On Feb 9, 2006, at 12:38 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
>> Python does not currently have an official Mac maintainer.
>
> Bingo! And no one has stepped up to document the amazing torrent of
> productive activity since Jack "retired". As a result, the useful
> pieces are scattered all over, the officia
> Python does not currently have an official Mac maintainer.
Bingo! And no one has stepped up to document the amazing torrent of
productive activity since Jack "retired". As a result, the useful
pieces are scattered all over, the official documentation is wildly
out of date, and there's not even
> 1. Link to the "Macintosh Library Module": A lot of that stuff will be
> rendered obsolete the minute Bob releases the universal build of
> MacPython. PythonIDE, Package Manager, etc.: not gonna be included. At a
> minimum, you should note that this stuff is "legacy." Also, who writes
> this stuf
At 8:29 PM -0800 2/8/06, Bill Janssen wrote:
>I've made up a sample page, at
>http://bill.janssen.org/new-macpython-page.html.
>
>This is the kind of thing I'd like to see replace the page at
>http://www.python.org/download/download_mac.html.
Bill,
As the sort of somewhat sophisticated novice py
On Feb 9, 2006, at 11:55 AM, Charles Hartman wrote:
> That's exactly the kind of fix that -- together with a handful of
> others -- could make this make-over work.
>
> Incorporating the TigerPython24Fix and TigerPython23Compat patches
> would be another small, huge step. Can the 2.4 installer
On Feb 9, 2006, at 5:18 AM, Charles Hartman wrote:
> I have an IDLE.app on my 10.4 machine. Since I haven't really used
> it, I can't remember if it came with Tiger, or showed up when I
> installed Python 2.4 -- does everyone with OS 10.4 have it? Is it
> just a shell to call idlelib? If so
That's exactly the kind of fix that -- together with a handful of
others -- could make this make-over work.
Incorporating the TigerPython24Fix and TigerPython23Compat patches
would be another small, huge step. Can the 2.4 installer look at the
system and decide which of these is needed?
The
On Feb 9, 2006, at 11:32 AM, Kevin Walzer wrote:
> 4. Maintainer: does Python on the Mac even have an official maintainer
> anymore? Has Jack Jansen resigned? Is it "maintainer-by-committee"? I
> can't help but think this is part of the reason Python seems adrift
> as a
> Mac development platfo
On Feb 9, 2006, at 10:52 AM, Bill Janssen wrote:
>> "pythonw" invokes GUI applications, "python" invokes console
>> applications. When installing an extension, I don't type "pythonw
>> setup.py install."
>
> But you could.
>
> No, my conceptual problem is just that you shouldn't need that extra
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bill Janssen wrote:
> I've made up a sample page, at
> http://bill.janssen.org/new-macpython-page.html.
>
> This is the kind of thing I'd like to see replace the page at
> http://www.python.org/download/download_mac.html.
>
> Bill
>
> I fixed a couple of the problems Bob noted, and added some links to
> pictures (how to start the Terminal, and what the IDLE IDE looks
> like).
I like it.
> I'm conflicted about "pythonw". On the one hand, this works for
> everything, whereas "python" doesn't. On the other hand, why isn't
>
> "pythonw" invokes GUI applications, "python" invokes console
> applications. When installing an extension, I don't type "pythonw
> setup.py install."
But you could.
No, my conceptual problem is just that you shouldn't need that extra
"w", and once you start explaining why it's there, there's no
> I fixed a couple of the problems Bob noted, and added some
> links to pictures (how to start the Terminal, and what the
> IDLE IDE looks like).
Looks good... But I would suggest...
Python on the Macintosh
You're in luck! Python comes pre-installed on Apple's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bill Janssen wrote:
>
> I'm conflicted about "pythonw". On the one hand, this works for
> everything, whereas "python" doesn't. On the other hand, why isn't
> this just what "python" invokes, and how do we explain that to people?
> Another example
I fixed a couple of the problems Bob noted, and added some links to
pictures (how to start the Terminal, and what the IDLE IDE looks
like).
I'm conflicted about "pythonw". On the one hand, this works for
everything, whereas "python" doesn't. On the other hand, why isn't
this just what "python" i
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>>Mac OS X 10.5 will surely ship with at least 2.4.2,
>
>Maybe, maybe not. Who knows what apple will do? ;-) ;-)
My bet is they start the Ascent to Transcendence any day now...
>This is a very good reason for not pointing newbies to the system python
>on pythonmac.org: un
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kevin Ollivier wrote:
>
>
> What about an app bundle that just starts IDLE?
+1 on this idea. That's the way IDLE currently ships, and I think it's
very useful. I myself don't like running Python GUI applications from
the command-line: I like to see
I have an IDLE.app on my 10.4 machine. Since I haven't really used it, I can't remember if it came with Tiger, or showed up when I installed Python 2.4 -- does everyone with OS 10.4 have it? Is it just a shell to call idlelib? If so, is there any way to tell whether it calls with python or with py
On 09/02/2006, at 5:44 PM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
> This has nothing to do with C++ vs. C, but that Carbon/Carbon.h is
> not POSIX compliant (and that's likely also true for other Apple
> headers).
Why do you say it is not POSIX compliant? As my test program
demonstrates, it works correct
54 matches
Mail list logo
