On Feb 4, 2006, at 1:29 AM, Nicholas Riley wrote: > On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 09:41:32AM +0100, Ronald Oussoren wrote: >> An alternative to fat might be 'ppc,i386'. That is longer, but is >> clearer about which architectures are supported (just in case someone >> decides to donate support for a threeway universal build). Patching >> setuptools to know that an architecture string that contains a comma >> is actually a list of architectures shouldn't be too hard. > > This sounds like a good idea, and this is not just a legacy issue with > ppc64 - we'll likely have a 64-bit x86 Mac variant to handle within > the year.
Even more reason to leave fat as ppc,i386 -- which are all 32 bit builds... Currently, I'm pretty sure ppc64 won't even build at all. -bob _______________________________________________ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig
