Thank you all for your comments so far on this subject. I have noted two separate issues raised here: one, how to build the Pythons provided by binary installers to get optimum performance (i.e. use more recent compilers); and, two, what OS X releases should we support with binary installers. As I noted earlier, I've opened Issue19019 and I will update it with concrete proposals when we've complete the necessary testing and fixing of various build configurations, including of the sort Ronald and I outlined. If you are interested in the details of this, please move that discussion to the bug tracker.
As to point two, I will put a stake in the ground here and declare that we will continue to support 10.6 with 3.4 batteries-included installers. For various reasons, 10.6 remains surprisingly popular (at a recent Python hackathon meetup in San Francisco, every person I helped who had a Mac was running 10.6) and it is not that old even by Apple standards. There are tradeoffs in how best to provide that support. Among those tradeoffs are the impacts to those who provide binary packages for extension modules and third-party libraries, as Russell notes. Again, after investigating and testing the nitty-gritty details, if it seems that a change in how we provide installers is warranted, we can discuss that on Issue19019 and report back here prior to any final decision. Also, at that time, it would be appropriate to consider a policy for long-term support of OS X releases; it's a bit premature to do so now. -- Ned Deily, n...@acm.org _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
