In article <53a87fb3.2000...@egenix.com>, "M.-A. Lemburg" <m...@egenix.com> wrote: [...] > But without access to the VS 2008 compiler that is needed to > compile those extensions, it will become increasingly difficult > for package authors to provide such binary packages, so we have to > ask ourselves: > > What's worse: breaking old Windows binaries for Python 2.7 > or not having updated and new Windows binaries for Python 2.7 > at all in a few years ? > > Switching to a newer compiler will make things easier for everyone > and we'd see more binary packages for Windows again.
It does seem like a conundrum. As I have no deep Windows experience to be able to have an appreciation of all of the technical issues involved, I ask out of ignorance: would it be possible and desirable to provide a transition period of n 2.7.x maintenance releases (where n is between 1 and, say, 3) where we would provide 2 sets of Windows installers, one set (32- and 64-bit) with the older compiler and CRT and one with the newer, and campaign to get users and packagers who provide binary extensions to migrate? Would that mitigate the pain, assuming that Steve (or someone else) would be willing to build the additional installers for the transition period? I've done something similar on a smaller scale with the OS X 32-bit installer for 2.7.x but that impact is much less as the audience for that installer is much smaller. -- 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
