On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:36:08 -0400, Fred Drake <fdr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If we adopt such a micro-language (I'm reserving judgment until I've
> had more time to read the relevant PEPs carefully), I'd rather see the
> names match what's in the Python runtime more closely, probably only
> avoiding the call syntax.
> ..
> requires: pywin32; if sys.platform == 'win32'
> ..
I foresee problems with using constants from the python runtime as
they currently stand. Only for the simple reason that the existing
'constants' were good 5 years ago. But won't be good - next year.
For example, 'win32' refers to a specific windows because windows
can now be 64 bit.
Does win32 mean win64? It does now - but it shouldn't.
I propose windows and 32 and 64 as further qualifiers. So for example,
'windows' or 'windows-32' or 'windows-64'. Not to mention 'windows-xp-32'
and 'windows-xp-64' and 'windows-ce'.
Maybe windows-128 is around the corner - who knows..
I respect those sys python constants.. but they are too unspecific
to be used here.
And for linux, what is 'linux2' ? It should just be linux.. to
make it less confusing.
Anyway, I'm coding this all up now into an example.
So far I have in my table..
standard_platform_bits = ('windows','linux','mac',
'xp','vista','7','ce'
'os/x',
'32','64',
'kde','gnome',
'wx','gtk',
'ubuntu','debian','suse','redhat','gentoo',
'centos','symbian'
)
I think we need new constants for package installation. It
will be less confusing. Whichever way we go.
David
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
