Most, if not all, of this is deemed off-topic of python-dev, I'm continuing this conversation on the mac-sig.
On 27-jun-2006, at 16:38, J. Jeffrey Close wrote: > > Hi Ronald, > > Thanks very much for the feedback. > > A few points and answers -- > >>>> > Which sources are you using? The 2.4.x tarballs don't support -- > enable-universalsdk (and yes, configure won't complain about unknown > or misspelled options, that's an entirely different subject). Those > SDKs also don't support mixing --prefix and --enable-framework, the > prefix argument will be ignored completely. Python 2.5 does support -- > enable-universalsdk and specifiying other prefixes when using -- > enable-framework. I have a patch that backports this to 2.4.x, but > haven't applied this yet because I haven't had time to fully test > this yet, hopefully I'll manage this week. > > BTW. --enable-framework --with-pydebug is all you need, the others > are either default or deduced from the platform information by > configure. > > And completely off-topic: please don't install your own build of > python as /usr/bin/python. IMHO this is conceptually bad, but more > importantly Apple uses python in some parts of the OS (PDF workflows > for example) and this change could well break that. > <<< > > [JJC] > OK, I may try 2.5, see if that helps. yes I was warned about /usr, > and actually wasn't using that anymore I'm glad to hear that. > >>>> > What version of the developer tools are you using? And are you > building on PPC or Intel? > > One way to work around the problems you're having is to install the > binary install of 2.4.3. > <<< > > [JJC] > The reason that I need the source build is that I am trying to > build mod_python, and the binary does not install the libpython. > 2.4.a library that mod_python needs. Building from source won't help with that. If you do a framework install you will not get a libpython*.a, or even a libpython*.dylib. Most if not all projects that require such a library are wrong and should add support code for OSX. I am however tempted to add a symlink inside the Python.framework to get rid of discussions about this. > > I'm using an Intel machine and another modification I have to do is > to edit the Makefile to change "arch_only" to i386 (apparently an > error in configure). Nah, it's a feature ;-). > >>>> > Obviously someone must have managed, there's a binary installer for > the OS :-). And before you nobody that ran into this problem found > it important enough to actually tell us about is. > Ronald > <<< > > Yes, the binary installer works great but as I mentioned, does not > install all needed dev pieces. And before me, MANY people have run > into this (do a google for some of the errors that I've mentioned, > like +"___eprintf" +"OS X" , or mod_python and OSX, and you will > find many. And yet you're the first one that actually mentions these issues at a venue where they may get resolved :-(. I'll see what I can do to get mod_python to build (but no promises at to when that will happen) As I mentioned above, building from source won't install more files than are installed right now, unless you use a normal unix install of python. Ronald _______________________________________________ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig
