George Nurser wrote:
Apologies for perhaps raising an old chestnut here.... but these
issues would not arise if we had separate intel and ppc MacPython
binaries.
But all sorts of other issues would arise. The tricky bit to all of this
is getting/building Universal versions of the various dependencies. I
still have no idea why Apple doesn't just provide a few more common
libs, like libpng and libfreetype (which is now included with X11, but
as I understand it, that's an optional install). Anyway as we don't have
any control over what Apples does (and even less control over what they
have already not done!), we need other solutions:
My proposal:
We try to build a consensus among the MacPython community about a
"standard" way to deal with common dependencies. There is now
more-or-less a consensus that we should provide binaries for MacPython
(and now 10.5's Apple python) that are statically linked against
universal versions of all the dependencies. That works great, but the
truth is that it's a pain in the $$%#@ to get those dependencies built
right, so we've substantially raised the barrier for folks to build
binary packages. Also, it seems a bit silly to separately deal with
something like libpng for multiple packages. I think I've got at least
four python extensions with libpng.
For example: Fredrik Lundh recently asked on the PIL list for
recommendations as to what binaries he should provide for OS-X, and for
someone to build them (he doesn't have a Mac). I set out to do it for
him, and am still mired in dependency heck. Note that the key
dependencies are the same as for Matplotlib (libpng, libfreetype)
My proposal for the "standard" way to provide the libs:
Kyng Chaos (William Kyngesburye)'s Frameworks:
http://www.kyngchaos.com/wiki/software:frameworks
He's got UnixImageIO, which provides libpng and others, and freetype,
plus a bunch of others. They are all build as proper versioned OS-X
frameworks, as well as a nice little hack where he puts soft links in to
create a standard "unixy" hierarchy, so that they can be used by libs
that don't understand frameworks.
Yes, it's a bit extra to tell folks to first install these two
frameworks, then whatever the python package lib is, but I think it
really would make it easier all around, particularly for package
builders, and making things easier for package builders means that more
binaries would be built properly, which would make things easier for users.
Note: William's Frameworks are all versioned properly, so there would be
no harm in installing them multiple times, or having multiple versions
installed. In fact, I think you could build a *.mpkg that had both your
python package and the frameworks it needs, so that users would have a
one download and one click install. It wouldn't hurt to have multiple
packages with the same Frameworks installed this way.
Thoughts?
-Chris
--
Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer
Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax
Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig
