On Feb 6, 2006, at 12:15 PM, Christopher Barker wrote: > NOTE: I think we can recommend the same thing at this point for all > users of OS-X 10.3 and 10.4. It also looks like the new Universal > build > may become the news recommended Python for OS-X 10.3.9 and above, but > it's not ready yet.
Caveat emptor. You can not build extensions on 10.3.9 when using a universal build. The toolchain required (gcc4, 10.4 SDK, etc.) is just not available on that platform... and the CCFLAGS, LDFLAGS, etc. are all primed for that. Specifically, it would fall over on - isysroot, because that's gcc4 only, and also -arch i386 because Apple's public compilers didn't have support for that at that time. That said, you'd be able to use it, and install all the eggs/mpkgs you want, but you would not be able to use it with a compiler. That is, unless someone goes through the trouble of figuring out all the distutils.sysconfig hacks to make that work -- and it sure as hell isn't going to be me since I don't really have (or want) a 10.3 machine to test with. If you were able to compile extensions with 10.3.9 using the universal build, then you would only be able to produce PPC-only builds, and we'd need to add more hacks to setuptools so that it also accepts architecture specific binaries... right now it declares its architecture as "fat" and will only use eggs marked as fat. That goes both ways, users of the universal build can't use "legacy" eggs (marked with ppc or i386 architecture) from the current builds. -bob _______________________________________________ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig
