Part of this email is highly technical, but part is (somewhat) end-user oriented, so feel free to comment only on the parts that interest you.
In january I'd like to get two MacPythons out:
- MacPython 2.4.1 (full installer for Panther, time permitting for Jaguar too)
- MacPython 2.3 additions, version 3
The main feature of these is that they should coexist peacefully. With each other, and with user-built (or fink-installed, or whatever) Python 2.3.5 or 2.4.1. And MacPython 2.4.1 should coexist peacefully with an unmodified Apple Python 2.3 (possibly after making slight modifications to that 2.3 installation). More on this below.
The second feature is that they'll finally have the newer version of Package Manager (or, actually, the underlying pimp module), which allows the maintainer (me:-) to have a single database for all 10.3.X releases of MacOSX.
And, of course, there's bug fixes for things like the PythonIDE scripts folder bug and such.
First question: what am I missing? Anything that should really go into either (or both) of these? Any serious bugs that you want fixed?
Second question: I think the solution to peaceful coexistence is that all Pythons adopt the solution sketched in Bob's mail <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/pythonmac-sig/2004-December/ 012292.html>. That discussion is rather technical, but what it boils down to is that all Pythons (on 10.3) build their extensions with "-undefined dynamic_lookup", thereby forestalling that extensions inadvertently pull in a second, different, Python framework.
Fixing this for 2.4.1 and 2.3.5 themselves is rather easy (and sketched in the mail mentioned above). Fixing this in the Apple-installed 2.3 is a bit more difficult, though. We can either modify it in-place (with admin permission) or do a complicated patch that Ronald came up with last year. While in general you should not muck with Apple-installed things I think that for this once I have a preference for the simple in-place modification over the slightly convoluted patch. Opinions, anyone?
Then there's the question of how to get the patch in place, and here I need a bit of help. For people building Python 2.4.1 from source I can add a test (in "make frameworkinstall") for an unpatched Apple 2.3 and print a warning that people need to apply the patch. The MacPython 2.4.1 and 2.3-additions-version-3 installers could simply apply the patch. But I'm not sure what to do about Pythons installed by Fink and darwinports and other such packages.
There's also the question of the form of the patch. What needs to be done (in case of the in-place modification) is a one-line change to /System/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/2.3/lib/python2.3/ config/Makefile. The patch could either be a shell script (containing a simple "ed" command to patch the file, or maybe a Python script so it can do some checking) or a .pkg file. The former is easiest for people building from source, the latter would also be a partial solution for fink users (partial, because it would allow them to apply the patch, but there's still no way to warn them that it is needed). Or should we do both?
--
Jack Jansen, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, http://www.cwi.nl/~jack
If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma Goldman
_______________________________________________ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig
