On Thursday 07 August 2008 00:48:06 Christopher Arndt wrote: > zooko schrieb: > > On Aug 5, 2008, at 10:07 AM, Ian Bicking wrote: > >> No... which makes binary eggs unusable on Linux. I feel like there > >> was something else that made binary packages on a Mac unreliable, but > >> I can't remember. > > > > Perhaps it was http://bugs.python.org/setuptools/issue19 (Will > > setuptools on Mac Python accept fat eggs?). > > Yes, that's what I meant. setuptools on Mac OS X 10.5 does not accept > 'fat' binary eggs build on 10.4.
I understood your post as if fat-binaries as whole weren't supported under 10.5, which they are. > Diez. R. Roggisch schrieb: > > Why shouldn't they? > > Or can you install all of the following on Leopard? > > http://files.turbogears.org/eggs/simplejson-1.9.1-py2.5-macosx-10.3-fat.egg > http://files.turbogears.org/eggs/RuleDispatch-0.5a0.dev_r2306-py2.5-macosx- >10.3-fat.egg > http://files.turbogears.org/eggs/PyProtocols-1.0a0dev_r2302-py2.5-macosx-10 >.3-fat.egg > http://files.turbogears.org/eggs/Cheetah-2.0rc8-py2.5-macosx-10.3-fat.egg Dunno, most probably not. But there is no problem making 10.3, 10.4 and 10.5 available, isn't there? Inconvenient - for sure. But I understood the linux-problem to be that there actually is no way to determine if UCS2 or UCS4 is used, or at least not supported to generate different eggs for that - so you end up with one egg for two platforms, and on which it works is essentially luck. Diez _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
