Hi Werner,
just a note to this old thread:
Right now the idea of stackless as an add-on to Python is deferred and
replaced
by the current direction of having a separate, stand-alone package.
This is just to close this thread so far.
We are no longer bending over to collaborate with an existing python,
but try to
be a compatible alternative with some optional additions.
cheers - Chris
On 01/05/13 12:19, Werner Thie wrote:
Hi Christian
From what I recall, I asked in previous mail if there is a naming
convention in place which would allow to keep stackless apart from
stock installations, like the OSX one.
AFAIR the main swing was for some time, use stackless in lieu of
python, whereas now it seems to be keep things apart.
I'm fine with keeping things apart, no opposition on my side and with
a different naming for the package and the executable we might even
pass the tests for becoming a brew instead of a tap
Werner
PS: BTW - homebrew is NOT replacing stock python, it does a separate
install in /usr/local, with the executables name also being 'python',
which means whatever PATH you have set, it either takes the stackless
or the stock one. Eclipse's PyDev does a great job keeping several
python's apart as well as virtualenv
On 4/30/13 8:00 PM, Christian Tismer wrote:
Hi Werner,
On 4/30/13 5:32 PM, Werner Thie wrote:
Hi all
Concerning the Mac OSX version, I still have that brew recipe? As a
tap it would probably have a life in the home brew environment.
Concerning the problems with several Python version installed on a Mac
the home brew approach is by far the cleanest I found.
All we need is tarball on the official site with an MD5 digest, form
there its only
brew install stackless
Anyone favoring this approach?
I saw your post to the list from July 2012. At that time I was not yet
using Homebrew,
but meanwhile I am.
Here my opinion:
- Homebrew does a quite good job when you need a certain package.
It is also what I use on OS X, instead of using canned builds from
python.org.
- I had a closer look at your version for Stackless, and that is
unfortunately
exactly what I don't want, with any installer, be it one like
python.org's, your's, or
anything else that installs Stackless Python as a replacement of
regular Python.
That is not the problem to be solved. We had such solutions since 1998,
and this was
the wrong approch, all the time.
I am meanwhile convinced that it is a bad idea to have an installer for
Stackless Python
that replaces CPython by using the same folder and name for the
executable.
Don't be offended, I have no objection if you modify your Homebrew
Stackless installer
and name the executable different from Python, so they can co-exist. So
please feel free to
try again to get into the Homebrew distro, do exactly what they do for
Python and Python3,
but avoid giving it the name Python or Python3.
I think my answers to two different threads were not clear enough, so I
should be a bit
clearer about what is needed.
The approach that Anselm and me want to push further is a bit more than
an installer:
Instead of downloading and installing a different version, the idea is
to install
Stackless on top of an existing CPython of an exact version, and install
the Stackless
addition as an extension-like add-on, although that is cheating, because
we still
need to replace the interpreter.
For that reason, I also still am in favor of naming the stackless
interpreter slightly differently,
although it can and should share as much as possible from the original
installation.
The point is to get people into trying stackless as an alternative,
without destroying their
CPython installation. Stackless needs to play nicely, like an extension
that you can toss if
it does not fit your needs.
If you think it makes sense to use homebrew for this, then I'm
interested to read your
thoughts. But yet another installer is neither on the problems nor on
the solutions side
of what the topic was in the other thread you are referring to.
I want Stackless to be (almost) as simple as Greenlet to install.
Cheers -- Chris
To all:
I think we should try to discuss a road map for Stackless, where the
journey
should go in the future.
What is the best way to set up a discussion? Does the stackless list
suffice
for that, or is it better to use some Google groups stuff?
-1 for Google groups or
rather positive
+1 for the list, it is more than sufficient for me
Werner
_______________________________________________
Stackless mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless
_______________________________________________
Stackless mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless
--
Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:[email protected]>
Software Consulting : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 121 : *Starship* http://starship.python.net/
14482 Potsdam : PGP key -> http://pgp.uni-mainz.de
phone +49 173 24 18 776 fax +49 (30) 700143-0023
PGP 0x57F3BF04 9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619 305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04
whom do you want to sponsor today? http://www.stackless.com/
_______________________________________________
Stackless mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless
