Brian Lloyd wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 8:38 PM, Hamilton Link <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
...
I suppose the first question is,
Why are there no apparent build instructions in the distribution?
Hi there - unfortunately I think the problem is that it would take a
large effort
to come up with a build process that works reliably for all possible
platforms
(mono, win32), python versions, unicode requirements, build
toolchains, etc.
Consequently, the docs are kind of all over the place.
Thus far, while python.net <http://python.net> has been useful for
some people, I don't think the
user community is large enough yet for any group of people to get
together to
put together anything really comprehensive in terms of distribution
tools or
docs.
If you're willing to write some, I'm willing to give you whatever
access you need to
get them in svn ;) If anyone thinks a lighter weight tool would help,
we could set up
a mediawiki instance or something as well...
Python.net serves a niche's niche's niche, so I don't expect it will
ever have too many users. But SVN access would be great, thanks. I
will try to put in a README of some sort that combines the relevant
documentation I can find plus whatever works for me into a
(disclaimer-ed) set of build instructions.
Also if I am able to do a before/after test of the .net SP1 patch would
anyone mind if I committed that into the repository?
Also, if the SP1 patch and anything else goes in to the trunk (and if I
can figure out how to do it) I will package a new distro that includes
the setup.py script and the patches and I'll put it on sourceforge as
alpha 3 or some such. But don't hold your breath until it's already
done, 'k?
How actively maintained is PythonNet at the moment?
I have, and will continue to, give those folks access to
sourceforge etc. to improve the platform as they are able. But my
impression is
that where we are now is a situation where people can "scratch their
own itch", but
there is no organized effort to track the .NET or mono platform
changes going
forward. My opinion is that it will take an invested champion to make
that happen.
FWIW, Resolver and others seem to be using some of the code and
concepts from
python.net <http://python.net> to further use of native extensions
with IronPython -- that may also be a
good avenue to explore if you're looking for long-term supportability
(and I'm sure
resolver would welcome the help!)
-Brian
Well, for what it's worth, for the near future I have a vested interest
in making sure python.net works on linux, windows, and os x. IronPython
isn't an option for me. Other good news is that mono now claims
approximate 2.0 compliance and so the underpinnings of the CLR shouldn't
change for a good while yet, minimizing portability issues. The bad
news is most of my time is being spent on other projects than this one.
Beyond extensive testing we'll see what happens. I can't promise I'll
be in a place to debug any problems, since I'm not really a python
programmer. And I _really_ can't promise upgrades for python 2.6 (if it
doesn't already work... haven't tried it) or python 3.x.
h
_________________________________________________
Python.NET mailing list - PythonDotNet@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythondotnet
