Re: [Python-Dev] 2.3.5 schedule, and something I'd like to get in
On Saturday 08 January 2005 00:05, Jack Jansen wrote: This patch implements the proposed direct framework linking: http://python.org/sf/1097739 Looks good, I'll incorporate it. And as I haven't heard of any showstoppers for the -undefined dynamic_lookup (and Anthony seems to be offline this week) I'll put that in too. Sorry, I've been busy on other projects for the last couple of weeks, and email's backed up to an alarming degree. Currently I'm thinking of a 2.3.5 sometime around the 20th or so. I'll have a better idea next week, once I've been back at work for a couple of days and I've seen what stuff's backed up awaiting my time. At the moment I'm thinking of a 2.4.1 in maybe early March. The only really outstanding bugfix is the marshal one, afaik. Anthony -- Anthony Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's never too late to have a happy childhood. ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] 2.3.5 schedule, and something I'd like to get in
On Jan 6, 2005, at 15:03, Bob Ippolito wrote: On Jan 6, 2005, at 14:59, Ronald Oussoren wrote: On 6-jan-05, at 14:04, Jack Jansen wrote: On 6 Jan 2005, at 00:49, Martin v. Löwis wrote: The new solution is basically to go back to the Unix way of building an extension: link it against nothing and sort things out at runtime. Not my personal preference, but at least we know that loading an extension into one Python won't bring in a fresh copy of a different interpreter or anything horrible like that. This sounds good, except that it only works on OS X 10.3, right? What about older versions? 10.3 or later. For older OSX releases (either because you build Python on 10.2 or earlier, or because you've set MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET to a value of 10.2 or less) we use the old behaviour of linking with -framework Python. Wouldn't it be better to link with the actual dylib inside the framework on 10.2? Otherwise you can no longer build 2.3 extensions after you've installed 2.4. It would certainly be better to do this for 10.2. This patch implements the proposed direct framework linking: http://python.org/sf/1097739 -bob ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] 2.3.5 schedule, and something I'd like to get in
On 7 Jan 2005, at 11:08, Bob Ippolito wrote: 10.3 or later. For older OSX releases (either because you build Python on 10.2 or earlier, or because you've set MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET to a value of 10.2 or less) we use the old behaviour of linking with -framework Python. Wouldn't it be better to link with the actual dylib inside the framework on 10.2? Otherwise you can no longer build 2.3 extensions after you've installed 2.4. It would certainly be better to do this for 10.2. This patch implements the proposed direct framework linking: http://python.org/sf/1097739 Looks good, I'll incorporate it. And as I haven't heard of any showstoppers for the -undefined dynamic_lookup (and Anthony seems to be offline this week) I'll put that in too. -- Jack Jansen, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.cwi.nl/~jack If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma Goldman ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] 2.3.5 schedule, and something I'd like to get in
On 6 Jan 2005, at 00:49, Martin v. Löwis wrote: The new solution is basically to go back to the Unix way of building an extension: link it against nothing and sort things out at runtime. Not my personal preference, but at least we know that loading an extension into one Python won't bring in a fresh copy of a different interpreter or anything horrible like that. This sounds good, except that it only works on OS X 10.3, right? What about older versions? 10.3 or later. For older OSX releases (either because you build Python on 10.2 or earlier, or because you've set MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET to a value of 10.2 or less) we use the old behaviour of linking with -framework Python. -- Jack Jansen, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.cwi.nl/~jack If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma Goldman ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] 2.3.5 schedule, and something I'd like to get in
On 6-jan-05, at 14:04, Jack Jansen wrote: On 6 Jan 2005, at 00:49, Martin v. Löwis wrote: The new solution is basically to go back to the Unix way of building an extension: link it against nothing and sort things out at runtime. Not my personal preference, but at least we know that loading an extension into one Python won't bring in a fresh copy of a different interpreter or anything horrible like that. This sounds good, except that it only works on OS X 10.3, right? What about older versions? 10.3 or later. For older OSX releases (either because you build Python on 10.2 or earlier, or because you've set MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET to a value of 10.2 or less) we use the old behaviour of linking with -framework Python. Wouldn't it be better to link with the actual dylib inside the framework on 10.2? Otherwise you can no longer build 2.3 extensions after you've installed 2.4. Ronald ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] 2.3.5 schedule, and something I'd like to get in
Ronald Oussoren wrote: Wouldn't it be better to link with the actual dylib inside the framework on 10.2? Otherwise you can no longer build 2.3 extensions after you've installed 2.4. That's what I thought, too. Regards, Martin ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] 2.3.5 schedule, and something I'd like to get in
On Jan 6, 2005, at 14:59, Ronald Oussoren wrote: On 6-jan-05, at 14:04, Jack Jansen wrote: On 6 Jan 2005, at 00:49, Martin v. Löwis wrote: The new solution is basically to go back to the Unix way of building an extension: link it against nothing and sort things out at runtime. Not my personal preference, but at least we know that loading an extension into one Python won't bring in a fresh copy of a different interpreter or anything horrible like that. This sounds good, except that it only works on OS X 10.3, right? What about older versions? 10.3 or later. For older OSX releases (either because you build Python on 10.2 or earlier, or because you've set MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET to a value of 10.2 or less) we use the old behaviour of linking with -framework Python. Wouldn't it be better to link with the actual dylib inside the framework on 10.2? Otherwise you can no longer build 2.3 extensions after you've installed 2.4. It would certainly be better to do this for 10.2. -bob ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] 2.3.5 schedule, and something I'd like to get in
On 5-jan-05, at 9:33, Martin v. Löwis wrote: Bob Ippolito wrote: It doesn't for reasons I care not to explain in depth, again. Search the pythonmac-sig archives for longer explanations. The gist is that you specifically do not want to link directly to the framework at all when building extensions. Because an Apple-built extension then may pick up a user-installed Python? Why can this problem not be solved by adding -F options, as Jack Jansen proposed? It gets worse when you have a user-installed python 2.3 and a user-installed python 2.4. Those will be both be installed as /Library/Frameworks/Python.framework. This means that you cannot use the -F flag to select which one you want to link to, '-framework Python' will only link to the python that was installed the latest. This is an issue on Mac OS X 10.2. Ronald ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] 2.3.5 schedule, and something I'd like to get in
Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bob Ippolito wrote: It doesn't for reasons I care not to explain in depth, again. Search the pythonmac-sig archives for longer explanations. The gist is that you specifically do not want to link directly to the framework at all when building extensions. Because an Apple-built extension then may pick up a user-installed Python? Why can this problem not be solved by adding -F options, as Jack Jansen proposed? This is not the wrong way to do it. I'm not convinced. Martin, can you please believe that Jack, Bob, Ronald et al know what they are talking about here? Cheers, mwh -- Q: Isn't it okay to just read Slashdot for the links? A: No. Reading Slashdot for the links is like having just one hit off the crack pipe. -- http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/klee/misc/slashdot.html#faq ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] 2.3.5 schedule, and something I'd like to get in
On Jan 5, 2005, at 3:33 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote: Bob Ippolito wrote: It doesn't for reasons I care not to explain in depth, again. Search the pythonmac-sig archives for longer explanations. The gist is that you specifically do not want to link directly to the framework at all when building extensions. Because an Apple-built extension then may pick up a user-installed Python? Why can this problem not be solved by adding -F options, as Jack Jansen proposed? This is not the wrong way to do it. I'm not convinced. Then you haven't done the appropriate research by searching pythonmac-sig. Do you even own a Mac? -bob ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] 2.3.5 schedule, and something I'd like to get in
On Jan 5, 2005, at 18:46, Martin v. Löwis wrote: Bob Ippolito wrote: I just dug up some information I had written on this particular topic but never published, if you're interested: http://bob.pythonmac.org/archives/2005/01/05/versioned-frameworks- considered-harmful/ Interesting. I don't get the part why -undefined dynamic_lookup is a good idea (and this is indeed what bothered me most to begin with). As you say, explicitly specifying the target .dylib should work as well, and it also does not require 10.3. Without -undefined dynamic_lookup, your Python extensions are bound to a specific Python installation location (i.e. the system 2.3.0 and a user-installed 2.3.4). This tends to be quite a problem. With -undefined dynamic_lookup, they are not. Just search for version mismatch on pythonmac-sig: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22version+mismatch%22+pythonmac- sig+site:mail.python.orgie=UTF-8oe=UTF-8 -bob ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
