On Mar 25, 2006, at 12:06 PM, Ronald Oussoren wrote: > > On 25-mrt-2006, at 19:41, Russell E Owen wrote: > >> At 6:35 PM +0100 3/25/06, Ronald Oussoren wrote: >>>>> On 23-mrt-2006, at 19:24, James Boyle wrote: >>>>> ... >>>>>> I am running OX 10.3.9. I installed python 2.4.2 using Universal >>>>>> MacPython 2.4.2.dmg. >>>>>> ... >>> >>> The universal binary build contains some trickery to enable >>> building extensions >>> on OSX 10.3.9 even though the default compiler flags contain items >>> that don't >>> work with gcc 3.3. Appearently he's running into problems. >>> >>> I'll be working on a universal build of python 2.4.3c1 after >>> dinner, and will look >>> into this problem as well. >> >> Would it be easier to have separate installers for 10.3.9 (not >> universal binaries) and 10.4.x (universal binaries, gcc 4 required)? > > I'd prefer to have 1 installer for python on OSX, that makes support > a lot easier.
+1. From my experience on this list, any choice or ambiguity comes at great (support) cost. We need to have one and preferably only one obvious way to use Python on Mac OS X. This means universal binaries, (only) universal extensions whenever possible, and support for 10.3.9+ in one installer. 10.2 users should stick with older releases, get in the habit of building it themselves, or use fink or darwinports (if they're still supporting 10.2). -bob _______________________________________________ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig
