>He's right -- we want to be able to provide a simple message. I'm right twice over. An appendum to my instructions: Not only do you have to use setuptools to install PyObjC with 2.6.4 on Snow Leopard, but you have to build the templates manually as well (using instructions found on another site). What's a guy looking for instructions to do?
>If you need 64 bit, I guess you're stuck with Apple's build, though >hopefully there will be another option before too long. It's hard to believe python.org aren't close or working on a 64-bit version for release for Mac. My own glances at some forums indicates 64-bit something somethings exist. Hmmm. -Adam aka brainysmurf On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Christopher Barker <chris.bar...@noaa.gov>wrote: > Ned, > > Thanks for the detailed review -- what a mess! I've got a longer note about > this at work -- apparently I failed to send it before catching the bus, but > a few clarifications: > > > 2) we're talking on that list about implementing what Robin Dunn has done >>> for wxPython -- a single installer that puts numpy somewhere, then puts >>> *.pth files in both the Apple and Python.org Pythons, so that a single >>> installer will work with both. >>> >> >> Without knowing the details, that could be a dicey proposition if there >> are any C extensions involved. >> > > well, c extensions are the whole point -- this is all pretty trivial for > pure-python. > > > There is no guarantee that a single set of binaries would work on >> multiple instances of python, even the same source level, if the pythons >> themselves were not built with the same options and tool chains. At the >> moment, that certainly is not true for the Apple and the python.orgpythons >> in any of 10.4, 10.5, and especially 10.6. >> > > odd -- it's been working for a while for wxPython -- python 2.5 and 2.6 32 > bit universal, though I don't know if it works on 10.6. It sounds like Apple > has made it even more ugly now. > > > In 10.6, Apple supplies a Python 2.6.1 (3-way build with 64-bit Intel as >> default) >> > > so if you type "python" on a stock system, you get 64 bit? > > > and a Python 2.5.4 (2-way 32-bit only) both built with GCC 4.2.1. 2.6.1 >> has a deployment target of 10.6 while 2.5.4's is 10.5: >> > > so neither of these is any good if you want to use py2app and distribute to > older systems. > > Are we going to need multiple installers, maybe 32 and 64 bit? >>> >> >> That will probably result in two separate installers for each >> python version: one 32-bit only built as in the past for 10.3.9+ and a new >> 2-way (Intel-only 32/64, 10.6 or higher) or 3-way (2-way plus ppc, 10.5 or >> higher). >> > > OK -- I still think it's a good idea for us, as a community to try to > support a particular small set of binaries with binary packages. In the past > is was "the python.org build" > > I still don't think distributing binaries for Apple's builds is a good idea > -- it's just not universal enough. For now, I suspect these are the best > options: > > python 2.5: > python.org build (32 bit PPC and intel) > > python 2.6: > 32 bit python.org 2.6.4 > 64 bit python.org build? > > python 2.7: > python.org 3-way build, if that happens. > or separate 32 and 64 bit builds > > python 3.1: > python.org build (whatever it ends up being) > > Darn, that's quite a few to support! > > If there is a 3 (or 4) way build, will you be able to build and install a > 32bit only package (like wxPython) for it? > > From another thread: > > Adam Morris <amor...@mistermorris.com> wrote: >> >>> As for the debate about binaries, it seems to me that if there was better >>> explanation of how to use Python effectively on the various operating >>> systems, it would help a lot. Basically, install 2.6.4 and be done with >>> it. >>> >> > He's right -- we want to be able to provide a simple message. > > Unfortunately, it's not always that cut-and-dried. For instance, the >> current python.org installers are currently 32-bit only; the >> Apple-supplied Python 2.6 supports 64-bit as well. That's important for >> some users. >> > > So at least we can say: > > if you don't need 64 bit, install the latest python.org build (either 2.5, > 2.6, or 3.1) > > If you need 64 bit, I guess you're stuck with Apple's build, though > hopefully there will be another option before too long. > > Thanks, > > > -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 > > chris.bar...@noaa.gov > _______________________________________________ > Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig >
_______________________________________________ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig
