On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 05:57:17AM -0800, Istvan Albert wrote: -> On Feb 6, 12:02?am, "C. Titus Brown" <[email protected]> wrote: -> > -> > platforms without pyrex. ?I'm not sure how important it is for Joe -> > Anybody to be able to compile pygr, as long as they can install it -> > some other way. ?Thoughts? -> -> See my post above for the corrected url to the repository and -> setup.py, in the end it turns out to be very simple. -> -> I want to mention that by using eggs one introduces another dependecy, -> this time on setuptools. I would guess that if someone runs into some -> obstacles when getting pyrex installed, they would probably have the -> same problems installing setuptools as well. (I admit setuptools is -> probably more widely deployed)
I do not disagree with the general sentiment :). However, I think offering binary eggs solves the compile-time issues and would be a good idea, even if it adds setuptool dependencies into the mix. So we could offer: - binary eggs, for each version of Python, for Mac OS X and Windows - pyrex-compiled source distributions Then only developers would need to have Pyrex installed and we could control the Pyrex version requireemnts in the tests, too, without screwing up users. cheers, --titus -- C. Titus Brown, [email protected] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pygr-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pygr-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
