Ned Deily <n...@acm.org> wrote: > In article <4bc54f4f.4090...@v.loewis.de>, > "Martin v. Lowis" <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote: > > > > Wasn't that problem fixed weeks ago? The installer image has been > > > available there since several days after the release. And the link > > > seems fine now. > > > > The inherent problem remains. There is no binary for 2.7b1, for example. > > The last binaries produced in the 2.7 testing process were for 2.7a2. > > That's true. But there wouldn't be a traditional OS X installer for > 2.7b1 anyway since it turns out it is not possible to build a multi-arch > installer without patching because of a bug that wasn't caught before > the code cutoff since there are no OS X buildbots that test that > configuration. But, at the moment, there aren't any OS X buildbots at > all, are there? That *is* something that the PSF could help with. I > would be happy to help with that myself
I'd be happy to help where I can, too. All my automated testing of UpLib (Windows, Ubuntu, Fedora, OS X) is done on Apple servers running OS X and VirtualBox and Hudson, so I've got some experience there. Bill _______________________________________________ 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
