On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Thomas Kluyver <tak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11 January 2017 at 10:31, René Dudfield <ren...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> As you say packaging can come after the release. >> > > Do you want to do the 1.9.3 with Mac wheels or without? The people who > tested them before the release indicated they were working, and you always > hear disproportionately from the people having problems, so I think there's > a good chance that they're useful to people despite all the issues that are > coming up. On the one hand, it may be easier not to try to support Mac > wheels for now; on the other hand I think it's more likely that the > problems get solved if people are trying to use them. > > I think we should go with the mac wheels. I did a couple of tests on some systems and they work fine. I think they weren't working on my system when I first tested because I had some outdated and hackily compiled sdl files in my homebrew which were messing with it. > Some of the breakages for macOS require fixes in SDL, and packaging for >> 32bit requires much other work (seems whl doesn't work, so a .dmg could >> possibly be made again). >> > > I don't think there's any reason .whl can't work for 32-bit code on Macs. > It's compiling the necessary dependencies that's the tricky bit, and trying > to make things work for older OSX versions. Those challenges are presumably > going to be the same however the code is packaged. > > Ah ok, cool. I thought you mentioned 32bit wheels didn't work because of something related to wheels. I'm working on getting the fixes upstreamed for 32bit. fluidsynth is the biggest one. > I updated the milestones for those issues. I think you should now be able >> to modify milestones in bitbucket. Let's just assign milestones to things >> we do going forwards, and clean up the other ones as they are done. > > > Oops, I may have just gone through half of them clearing up milestones > before I read that. ;-) > > Thomas > Oops! Sorry. Well, that's good that they're cleaned up now :)
