On Jan 6, 2005, at 15:03, Bob Ippolito wrote:
On Jan 6, 2005, at 14:59, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
On 6-jan-05, at 14:04, Jack Jansen wrote:
On 6 Jan 2005, at 00:49, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
The "new" solution is basically to go back to the Unix way of
building an extension: link it against nothing and sort things
out at runtime. Not my personal preference, but at least we know
that loading an extension into one Python won't bring in a fresh
copy of a different interpreter or anything horrible like that.
This sounds good, except that it only works on OS X 10.3, right?
What about older versions?
10.3 or later. For older OSX releases (either because you build
Python on 10.2 or earlier, or because you've set
MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET to a value of 10.2 or less) we use the old
behaviour of linking with "-framework Python".
Wouldn't it be better to link with the actual dylib inside the
framework on 10.2? Otherwise you can no longer build 2.3 extensions
after you've installed 2.4.
It would certainly be better to do this for 10.2.
This patch implements the proposed direct framework linking:
http://python.org/sf/1097739
-bob
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
