On Jun 7, 2005, at 5:23 PM, Trent Mick wrote: > [Bob Ippolito wrote] > >> It'd probably be better off just moving it to /Library/Frameworks/ >> Backup/Python.framework or something, for at least these reasons: >> >> If a developer is going to naively embed ActivePython in their >> application, they'll probably just add a copy files phase to their >> Xcode project and bring in the whole framework, which if they had >> installed MacPython it would mean they'd bring in two Pythons. >> > > That is a good reason. Do you have any idea of if that is at all > common? > I'll look into updating pydistro.py (and hence the ActivePython > installer to do this).
I doubt it's very common, but it's possible. >> /usr/local/bin/macpython will still be linking against ActivePython, >> because that's where the Mach-O load command points. >> % otool -L `which python` >> /usr/local/bin/python: >> /Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/2.4/Python >> (compatibility version 2.4.0, current version 2.4.0) >> > > Okay. This would require doing some binary patching of the MacPython > binaries (and the ActivePython binaries in the opposite case: moving > ActivePython aside). That is probably quite do-able: the ActivePython > installer has to do this on some of the other Unix platforms. Well, sure, but there are diminishing returns. Why bother? They / should/ be fully compatible anyway. I can't think of a good reason why somebody would want both ActivePython and MacPython active and working at the same time, anyway. One tool that would be nice is something that will migrate site- packages from one to the other when you're switching. -bob _______________________________________________ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig
