On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Ben Sizer <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/1/19 Richard Tew <[email protected]>: >> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Ben Sizer <[email protected]> wrote: >>> place (as my Stackless build didn't build socket, for some reason), >> >> I expect this is a problem with your compilation environment. >> >> If a standard part of Python fails to compile, you need to find out >> why and make sure it compiles before using the results of this >> compilation. > > But I don't see the relevance there - if Stackless is using my > pre-installed Python path (it is), and that path contains a pre-built > socket library binary (it does), and Stackless is binary compatible in > all reasonable cases with normal Python (you assure me it is, and I > have no reason to doubt that), then something's surely wrong with the > runtime environment rather than the build environment. Sometimes you
Sure. But if socket isn't compiling, I personally consider it worth getting it to compile and working out why it didn't as I consider its failure to compile unexpected and unacceptable. > can't build something because you lack the extra libraries for it, but > pre-built binaries for your platform and C runtime should work fine. Socket is not one of these things. It should compile reliably and consistently. In general, I consider its failure to compile to be a sign of larger problems with the compilation environment. I can accept ignoring the compilation of optional projects that have real external dependencies like SSL or bzip, but not socket. Cheers, Richard. _______________________________________________ Stackless mailing list [email protected] http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless
