On 10/25/2014 5:11 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
It might fragment the community to have multiple different binary distributions. But it ought to be possible for any person/organization to say "We're going to make our own build of Python, with these extension modules, built with this compiler, targeting this platform", and do everything from source. That might mean they can no longer take the short-cut of "download someone's MSVC-built extension and use it as-is", but they should be able to take anyone's extension and build it on their chosen compiler. Having MinGW as a formally supported platform would make life a lot easier for people who want to test CPython patches, for instance - my building and testing of PEP 463-enhanced Python was Linux-only, because I didn't want to try to set up an entire new buildchain just to try to get a Windows binary going. There's absolutely no need for that to be binary-compatible with anything else; as long as it'll run the standard library, it'll do.
David Murray's unanswered post laid out the path to move in the direction you want. Either take it yourself or try to persuade other MinGW fans to do so.
-- Terry Jan Reedy _______________________________________________ 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
