On 9 Dec, 2009, at 14:08, Kevin Walzer wrote: > After spending some time getting bundlebuilder to work with my 64-bit > programs, I have begun to wonder: what's the rationale for removing it from > Python 3.X? > > Its Carbon dependencies can be eliminated by simply removing the "import > argvemulator" statement, so (as far as I can see) there is no serious > technical impediment to leaving it in the Python library. Bundlbuilder > doesn't really argvemulation anyway, since hooks for this exist in all the > major GUI libraries (Tk, wxPython, and certainly PyObjC). > > And while bundlebuilder is a less robust tool than py2app, it is nonetheless > capable enough: I'm shipping two commercial applications that make use of it. > In fact, its simplicity (a single module) make it easier to dig into and > patch, something I can't do with py2app. I wouldn't have been able to release > my applications without it.
Py2app's code isn't that bad, although it does seem to be more complex than needed. Refactoring is hard though due to a complete lack of automated tests. > > What's the best way to keep bundlebuilder available for Python 3.x? Submit a > feature request at the bug tracker? Or separate it out, and submit a PyPi > project? Separating it out would be better. I'm not interested in re-adding bundlebuilder. What really should be done is restart py2app development, starting with automated tests and improved egg support. I'd love to work on that but basicly don't have time for that at the moment. Ronald
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig
