[issue8089] 2.6/3.1 32-bit/64-bit universal builds always run in 64-bit on 10.6

2010-03-19 Thread Ned Deily

Changes by Ned Deily n...@acm.org:


--
versions: +Python 3.1 -Python 2.6

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8089
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com



[issue8089] 2.6/3.1 32-bit/64-bit universal builds always run in 64-bit on 10.6

2010-03-19 Thread Ned Deily

Ned Deily n...@acm.org added the comment:

Per discussion with Ronald and Benjamin, attaching a revised patch 
(issue-sl-configure-32-31-rev3.txt) for 3.1 which ports the changes committed 
in r78813 and r78816 along with the Mac/README changes.

In the process of producing the revised 3.1 patch, I discovered that the 2.6 
changes as committed produce a build error for the 10.5 
--with-universal-archs=all (4-way) variant.  The 3.1 revised patch corrects 
that error.  Since 2.6.5 is now frozen, I am opening a new issue with patch for 
2.6.5.

I recommend that, once the 3.1 patch is applied for 3.1.2, this issue be closed 
and any new or remaining issues be tracked in new or other existing issues.

--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file16582/issue-sl-configure-32-31-rev3.txt

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8089
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com



[issue8089] 2.6/3.1 32-bit/64-bit universal builds always run in 64-bit on 10.6

2010-03-19 Thread Ned Deily

Ned Deily n...@acm.org added the comment:

(2.6.5 - Issue8175)

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8089
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com



[issue8089] 2.6/3.1 32-bit/64-bit universal builds always run in 64-bit on 10.6

2010-03-19 Thread Benjamin Peterson

Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org added the comment:

Fixed 3.1 in r79117.

--
resolution:  - fixed
status: open - closed

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8089
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com



[issue8089] 2.6/3.1 32-bit/64-bit universal builds always run in 64-bit on 10.6

2010-03-16 Thread Ronald Oussoren

Ronald Oussoren ronaldousso...@mac.com added the comment:

On 15 Mar, 2010, at 16:22, Tom Loredo wrote:

 
 Tom Loredo lor...@astro.cornell.edu added the comment:
 
 Ned-
 
 I *did* run make install; everything I reported was about the situation 
 *after* running make install.  In particular, I don't know any way to get 
 access to IDLE without make install; what I described came from using the 
 version in Applications/Python 2.6, which only appears after make install.
 
 Okay, now I see my misunderstanding---the arch-dependent executables are in 
 the framework only, and not linked in the installation prefix.  Is that the 
 intended behavior?  I do put my framework in my PATH so I do have access to 
 the executables; but I was expecting them to be in /usr/local/... as well.
 
 The version pointed to in /usr/local/... is the 32-bit version.  This should 
 be documented somewhere; I believe it changes previous behavior.  It's not 
 obvious to me what to expect here, which again argues that it should be 
 documented.

This is not a regression in 2.6,  the python-32 executable has never been 
linked into /usr/local/bin.  I agree that they should be as long as we fill 
/usr/local/bin, but that can wait until 2.6.6.

I always add the framework to $PATH because distutils installs scripts into 
that location.   It would be worthwhile to change that for 2.7 and 3.2: tweak 
distutils to ensure that site-packages and scripts get installed in 
/Library/Python/2.7/... and install (links to) the public executables there as 
well.  That way the location of scripts and site-packages is easily found in 
the Finder, while keeping a versioned location. I don't want to tweak 
distutils to install into /usr/local because I have several python trees and 
those should stay separate.

Ronald

 
 --
 
 ___
 Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
 http://bugs.python.org/issue8089
 ___

--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file16560/smime.p7s

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8089
___

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com



[issue8089] 2.6/3.1 32-bit/64-bit universal builds always run in 64-bit on 10.6

2010-03-16 Thread Tom Loredo

Tom Loredo lor...@astro.cornell.edu added the comment:

 the python-32 executable has never been linked into /usr/local/bin.

What I meant by the version pointed to is:  The python command
in 2.6.4 produced by an intel universal build (whether in the
framework or the install prefix) executed as 64-bit.  I
don't believe it linked to either python-32 or -64; I don't think those
were even installed in 2.6.4.  I think it was a bundle that just
happened to execute as 64-bit (and provided no access to 32-bit
python).  So the python command-line behavior under 2.6.5rc2 is
different from what it was for 2.6.4.  I don't think this is a 
significant regression, as the previous behavior was never documented 
and was actually somewhat problematic.  I'm just pointing it out for 
documentation purposes.

 I always add the framework to $PATH because distutils installs scripts into 
 that location.

Yes, I do the same.  Still, I think your proposed plans for linking in the 
prefix in 2.7/3.2 make a lot of sense.

--
versions: +Python 2.6 -Python 3.1

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8089
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com



[issue8089] 2.6/3.1 32-bit/64-bit universal builds always run in 64-bit on 10.6

2010-03-16 Thread Barry A. Warsaw

Barry A. Warsaw ba...@python.org added the comment:

Unless you vehemently disagree, I am not making this a release blocker for 
2.6.5.

--
priority: release blocker - critical

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8089
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com



[issue8089] 2.6/3.1 32-bit/64-bit universal builds always run in 64-bit on 10.6

2010-03-16 Thread Tom Loredo

Tom Loredo lor...@astro.cornell.edu added the comment:

 Unless you vehemently disagree, I am not making this a release blocker for 
 2.6.5.

I'm not sure who you are asking (I doubt it was me!), but I don't consider this 
a release blocker.  The only possible substantive issue is whether python 
should run 32-bit or 64-bit Python after a universal framework install.  
Previously it ran 64-bit, but that was probably accidental.  I don't have a 
strong opinion about this; others should weigh in appropriately.

I think a change in behavior here would only negatively impact a very small 
number of users (those who built from source on OS X, and who built universal 
versions on a 64-bit platform, and who count on 64-bit default behavior).  For 
example, they may have built 64-bit extensions that could appear broken after 
an update to 2.6.5 if they don't know they should use python-64.

In my opinion the main part of the source at issue here is not really source 
but the Mac/README file; but this is certainly not the only subtlety of 
Python-on-OS X that is not yet covered there!

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8089
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com



[issue8089] 2.6/3.1 32-bit/64-bit universal builds always run in 64-bit on 10.6

2010-03-15 Thread Barry A. Warsaw

Barry A. Warsaw ba...@python.org added the comment:

As per msg100765, Ned confirms this is fixed for 2.6.5.

--
status: open - closed

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8089
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com



[issue8089] 2.6/3.1 32-bit/64-bit universal builds always run in 64-bit on 10.6

2010-03-15 Thread Ned Deily

Ned Deily n...@acm.org added the comment:

Re-opening for 3.1.2: the corresponding fixes have not made it into 3.1.2 yet.

--
status: closed - open

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8089
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com



[issue8089] 2.6/3.1 32-bit/64-bit universal builds always run in 64-bit on 10.6

2010-03-15 Thread Ned Deily

Changes by Ned Deily n...@acm.org:


--
versions: +Python 3.1 -Python 2.6

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8089
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com



[issue8089] 2.6/3.1 32-bit/64-bit universal builds always run in 64-bit on 10.6

2010-03-15 Thread Tom Loredo

Tom Loredo lor...@astro.cornell.edu added the comment:

Ned-

I *did* run make install; everything I reported was about the situation 
*after* running make install.  In particular, I don't know any way to get 
access to IDLE without make install; what I described came from using the 
version in Applications/Python 2.6, which only appears after make install.

Okay, now I see my misunderstanding---the arch-dependent executables are in the 
framework only, and not linked in the installation prefix.  Is that the 
intended behavior?  I do put my framework in my PATH so I do have access to the 
executables; but I was expecting them to be in /usr/local/... as well.

The version pointed to in /usr/local/... is the 32-bit version.  This should be 
documented somewhere; I believe it changes previous behavior.  It's not obvious 
to me what to expect here, which again argues that it should be documented.

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8089
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com



[issue8089] 2.6/3.1 32-bit/64-bit universal builds always run in 64-bit on 10.6

2010-03-14 Thread Tom Loredo

Tom Loredo lor...@astro.cornell.edu added the comment:

Attempted to build 2.6.5rc2 on Mac Pro (2006), OS 10.6.2, following 
instructions in Mac/README:

./configure --prefix=/usr/local/tmp --enable-framework 
--with-universal-archs=intel --enable-universalsdk=/

Results of make test are as expected from past experience (but what 
architecture is being tested?):

332 tests OK.
2 tests failed:
test_asynchat test_smtplib
32 tests skipped:
test_al test_bsddb test_bsddb3 test_cd test_cl test_codecmaps_cn
test_codecmaps_hk test_codecmaps_jp test_codecmaps_kr
test_codecmaps_tw test_curses test_dl test_epoll test_gl
test_imageop test_imgfile test_largefile test_linuxaudiodev
test_normalization test_ossaudiodev test_pep277 test_py3kwarn
test_smtpnet test_socketserver test_startfile test_sunaudiodev
test_timeout test_urllib2net test_urllibnet test_winreg
test_winsound test_zipfile64
1 skip unexpected on darwin:
test_dl

Notably, test_tcl passes without incident.

Running the following within the installation directory runs the 64-bit 
pre-installation executable (judging by sys.maxint):

$ DYLD_FRAMEWORK_PATH=`pwd`: python.exe

Thus I presume it is the 64-bit version being run by make test.

The installed IDLE still has the Tk new window freeze issue; sys.maxint 
indicates it's the 32-bit version that is running when launcing IDLE.  I have a 
setup.py patch that will detect a 32-bit 10.6 installation and link against 
Apple's Tcl/Tk-8.4 compatibility version if the user hasn't
installed their own Tcl/Tk frameworks, but it's an ugly hack and I'm not sure 
this is desirable; we should probably just encourage installing newer Tcl/Tk.  
The hack does produce a working 32-bit IDLE, however.

Running python on the command line runs the 32-bit version; is this intended? 
 I think the default behavior for universal builds should be documented in the 
Mac/README, or at some location pointed to in the README.

I still see no way to access the two architectures.  My ./configure installs 
command line executables in /usr/local/tmp/bin, a non-existing directory before 
the install.  After installation, its contents are:

idle@ pydoc2.6@ python2.6@pythonw2.6@
idle2.6@  python@   python2.6-config@ smtpd.py@
pydoc@python-config@pythonw@  smtpd2.6.py@

I was expecting something along the lines of python-32 and/or python-64 to be 
here; what is the intended mechanism for accessing the two architectures?

$ arch -i386 python
gives me the (default) 32-bit version.

$ arch -x86_64 python
arch: posix_spawnp: python: Bad CPU type in executable

Whereas before with a universal install like this I was getting a 64-bit 
default and no way to access 32-bit (IIRC), now I appear to be in the reverse 
scenario.

Is there an error in my build process, or is there still an installation bug 
for dual-architecture Intel installs?

--
nosy: +tloredo
type:  - behavior
versions: +Python 2.6 -Python 3.1

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8089
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com



[issue8089] 2.6/3.1 32-bit/64-bit universal builds always run in 64-bit on 10.6

2010-03-14 Thread Ned Deily

Ned Deily n...@acm.org added the comment:

You need to run 'make install'.  The various python-32 and python-64 files 
are created and installed by the Mac/Makefile install_python4way target which 
should be getting called by the main Makefile install target as set by 
configure for the --with-universal-archs=intel.

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8089
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com



[issue8089] 2.6/3.1 32-bit/64-bit universal builds always run in 64-bit on 10.6

2010-03-09 Thread Barry A. Warsaw

Barry A. Warsaw ba...@python.org added the comment:

Thanks for the fix guys.  I believe this means it's no longer a blocker for 
2.6.5rc2, right?

--
priority: release blocker - high
versions:  -Python 2.6

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8089
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com



[issue8089] 2.6/3.1 32-bit/64-bit universal builds always run in 64-bit on 10.6

2010-03-09 Thread Ronald Oussoren

Ronald Oussoren ronaldousso...@mac.com added the comment:

I've commited a fix for 2.6 in r78813.

I will port that fix to 3.1 later today, but don't have time to test right now.

My fix is simular to the patch by Ned.

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8089
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com



[issue8089] 2.6/3.1 32-bit/64-bit universal builds always run in 64-bit on 10.6

2010-03-09 Thread Ned Deily

Ned Deily n...@acm.org added the comment:

Almost!  There's a small but significant typo that needs to be fixed in 
the change (r78813) that was committed for 2.6:

- UNIVERSAL_ARCH64_FLAGS=-arch x86_64 -arch x86_64
+ UNIVERSAL_ARCH64_FLAGS=-arch x86_64 -arch ppc64

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8089
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com



[issue8089] 2.6/3.1 32-bit/64-bit universal builds always run in 64-bit on 10.6

2010-03-09 Thread Barry A. Warsaw

Changes by Barry A. Warsaw ba...@python.org:


--
priority: high - release blocker

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8089
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com



[issue8089] 2.6/3.1 32-bit/64-bit universal builds always run in 64-bit on 10.6

2010-03-09 Thread Ronald Oussoren

Ronald Oussoren ronaldousso...@mac.com added the comment:

Ned: I fixed the typo in r78816

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8089
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com



[issue8089] 2.6/3.1 32-bit/64-bit universal builds always run in 64-bit on 10.6

2010-03-09 Thread Ned Deily

Ned Deily n...@acm.org added the comment:

Looks good for 2.6.5 (with 10.6 'intel' build).

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8089
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com



[issue8089] 2.6/3.1 32-bit/64-bit universal builds always run in 64-bit on 10.6

2010-03-08 Thread Ned Deily

New submission from Ned Deily n...@acm.org:

2.6.5 release blocker
3.1.2 release blocker

For 10.6, new universal build options were added to reflect the dropping of 
support in 10.6 for the ppc64 arch.  The new options:

  --universal-archs=3-way - -arch {i386,x86_64,ppc)
  --universal-archs=intel - -arch {i386,x86_64}

however do not add the executables and symlinks to select a -32 or
-64 variant like the existing --universal-archs=all does and so
these new build variants always run in 64-bit with no way to override
it. A simple test in configure.in needs to be changed to recognize
these new options.

Trunk (2.7) and py3k (3.2) use a new execution-time mechanism to select 32- vs 
64-bit execution and so do not exhibit this problem.

(Ronald and I agree this should be a release-blocker. Patch to follow.)

--
assignee: ronaldoussoren
components: Macintosh
messages: 100663
nosy: barry, benjamin.peterson, ned.deily, ronaldoussoren
severity: normal
status: open
title: 2.6/3.1 32-bit/64-bit universal builds always run in 64-bit on 10.6
versions: Python 2.6, Python 3.1

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8089
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com



[issue8089] 2.6/3.1 32-bit/64-bit universal builds always run in 64-bit on 10.6

2010-03-08 Thread Barry A. Warsaw

Changes by Barry A. Warsaw ba...@python.org:


--
priority:  - release blocker

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8089
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com



[issue8089] 2.6/3.1 32-bit/64-bit universal builds always run in 64-bit on 10.6

2010-03-08 Thread Barry A. Warsaw

Barry A. Warsaw ba...@python.org added the comment:

On Mar 08, 2010, at 08:20 PM, Ned Deily wrote:

(Ronald and I agree this should be a release-blocker. Patch to follow.)

BTW, the right thing to do in this case (for 2.6 anyway) is to set the issue
to be a release blocker, so it gets my attention.  I can always knock it down
if I don't agree.

In this case I do, so I've set the priority for you.  Please try to fix this
asap so we can get rc2 out.

-Barry

--

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8089
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com



[issue8089] 2.6/3.1 32-bit/64-bit universal builds always run in 64-bit on 10.6

2010-03-08 Thread Ned Deily

Ned Deily n...@acm.org added the comment:

The attached patches fix the problem for 2.6 and 3.1:
1. configure(.in) is changed to invoke the existing 4way build targets for 
--with-universal-archs values of 3-way and intel as well as all.
2. configure(.in) passes the necessary lipo -extract arch values into the 
Mac/Makefile for building Python-32 and Python-64.  (Note, the solution here is 
simpler than what was required for trunk and py3k because the use of lipo is 
isolated to the 4way build targets which can only be used for universal 
builds on 10.5+.)
3. a typo in the 2.6 Mac/README file is corrected and the previous updates are 
copied over from 2.6 to the 3.1 Mac/README.

Since configure.in is updated, it is necessary to run autoconf on both 2.6 and 
3.1 after applying these patches.

--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file16504/issue-sl-configure-32-26.txt

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8089
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com



[issue8089] 2.6/3.1 32-bit/64-bit universal builds always run in 64-bit on 10.6

2010-03-08 Thread Ned Deily

Changes by Ned Deily n...@acm.org:


Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file16505/issue-sl-configure-32-31.txt

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8089
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com



[issue8089] 2.6/3.1 32-bit/64-bit universal builds always run in 64-bit on 10.6

2010-03-08 Thread Ned Deily

Ned Deily n...@acm.org added the comment:

Correct inadvertent deletion in the 3.1 Mac/README.

--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file16506/issue-sl-configure-32-31-rev1.txt

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8089
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com



[issue8089] 2.6/3.1 32-bit/64-bit universal builds always run in 64-bit on 10.6

2010-03-08 Thread Ned Deily

Changes by Ned Deily n...@acm.org:


Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file16505/issue-sl-configure-32-31.txt

___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8089
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com