subject:"Re\: \[EVALUATION\] \- E02 \- Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler"

Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
Should a professional developer take python serious?
yes.
Should I take answers serious?
Answer from people which do not respect coherence of writings?

Should a professional developer take python serious?
I mean, if the team does not manage at least the foundation of a 
multi-target automated-build-process?

[targets need not to be supported directly by the python team. They 
could be added/managed/maintained by community members]


.
--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
Should a professional developer take python serious?
Yes.
Should I take answers serious?
Answer from people which do not respect coherence of writings?

Should a professional developer take python serious?
I mean, if the team does not manage at least the foundation of a 
multi-target automated-build-process?

[targets need not to be supported directly by the python team. They 
could be added/managed/maintained by community members]


.
--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-20 Thread Fredrik Lundh

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

 Should a professional developer take python serious?

yes.

/F 



-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-20 Thread Fredrik Lundh

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

Should a professional developer take python serious?

 yes.

 Should I take answers serious?

yes.

 Answer from people which do not respect coherence of writings?

coherence of writings?

/F 



-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-20 Thread Robert Kern

Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

Should a professional developer take python serious?
yes.
Should I take answers serious?

yes.

Answer from people which do not respect coherence of writings?

coherence of writings?
Ironic, is it not?
I think he's referring to the fact that you snipped some of the email 
you were replying to.

--
Robert Kern
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
 Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
  -- Richard Harter
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-20 Thread Martin v. Löwis

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
Should I take answers serious?
If not, why are you asking questions in the first place?
Answer from people which do not respect coherence of writings?
Coherence of writings?
Should a professional developer take python serious?
Yes.
I mean, if the team does not manage at least the foundation of a 
multi-target automated-build-process?
If the team *would* not manage at least the foundation of a
multi-target automated-build-process, a professional developer
*should* not take python serious.
However, since the team *does* manage at least the foundation of
a multi-target automated-build-process, a professional developer
*might* take python serious.
[a false premise can imply anything]
Regards,
Martin
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
Should I take answers serious?
If not, why are you asking questions in the first place?
simply read the next question, which limits the scope of the first one.
Answer from people which do not respect coherence of writings?
Coherence of writings?
An example:
they above 2 questions are coherent, thus answering isolated [as you've 
done] makes not much sense.


 Should I take answers serious?
 Answer from people which do not respect coherence of writings?

[answering here makes sense]
Should a professional developer take python serious?
Yes.
I mean, if the team does not manage at least the foundation of a 
multi-target automated-build-process?
If the team *would* not manage at least the foundation of a
multi-target automated-build-process, a professional developer
*should* not take python serious.
Very nice.
At this point, we agree very much.
However, since the team *does* manage at least the foundation of
a multi-target automated-build-process, a professional developer
*might* take python serious.
here our disagreement:
= {managing the foundation of a multi-target automated-build-process}
What are the requirements for fulfilling this?
[a false premise can imply anything]
again you ignore coherent writings.
-
You have omitted the following part of my writings:
[targets need not to be supported directly by the python team. They 
could be added/managed/maintained by community members]

in which I essentially define a few requirements for managing the 
foundation of a multi-target automated-build-process.

-
The python team should provide the fundamental infrastructure for the 
community, thus it can add/manage/maintain build targets.

Additionally:
  * The python-team should detect any efforts made for different 
build-targets
  * The python-team should attract/engourage the authors to include 
them in the main build-system [incubation section].

The python-community and the PSF supports the python-team to take the 
above actions.

Regards,
Martin
.
--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-20 Thread Jan Dries

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
they above 2 questions are coherent, thus answering isolated [as you've 
done] makes not much sense.


  Should I take answers serious?
  Answer from people which do not respect coherence of writings?

Except that the quote here above is NOT what was in your original 
posting. Here is the *real* quote (also note that Python uses  
instead of  for delimiting a multi-line string:


Should I take answers serious?
Answer from people which do not respect coherence of writings?

If you insert a blank line between two sentences most people in this 
newsgroup (and in the western world in general) will interprete that as 
the start of a new paragraph, as an indication that what follows is 
something different than what precedes the blank line.
If you want to obtain coherence of writing between two sentences, then 
maybe you shouldn't type them as different paragraphs.

If you would have written:

Should I take answers serious? Answer from people which do not respect 
coherence of writings?


it would have been much more coherent.
Regards,
Jan
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

Jan Dries wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
[...] - (things which justify inability of coherence-detection)
If you would have written:

Should I take answers serious? Answer from people which do not respect 
coherence of writings?


it would have been much more coherent.
I understand.
Let's see:
-
Should I take answers serious?
.
.
.
.
Answer from people which do not respect coherence of writings?
-
-
-
I still detect the coherence.
As most people in this group will detect the coherence.
[Except if you want to ignore it, thus you can get at least _one_ 
'points' ins this discussion]

Regards,
Jan
.
--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-20 Thread Fredrik Lundh

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

 I understand.

no.

/F 



-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-20 Thread Martin v. Löwis

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
Should I take answers serious?
.
.
.
.
Answer from people which do not respect coherence of writings?
-
-
-
I still detect the coherence.
As most people in this group will detect the coherence.
I don't. The second fragment is not even correct English
(it does not have a verb in the main phrase, and Answer
is lacking an article).
So I have to guess what you could have meant. If you want
to be understood, you might have phrased the question like
this:
Should I take answers from people which do not respect coherence
of writings serious?
Or, if this splits the adjective too much from the verb, you
could also write
Should I take answers serious if they come from people which
do not respect coherence of writings?
This *still* would not have meant that I had understood the
question, since I still don't know what coherence of
writings is (as you failed to give a definition when I
last asked), but atleast I would have realized that I
don't understand the question, and refrained from answering
it. Perhaps the question was meant rhetoric.
Regards,
Martin
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-20 Thread Grant Edwards

On 2005-02-20, Ilias Lazaridis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 If you would have written:
 
 
 Should I take answers serious? Answer from people which do not respect 
 coherence of writings?
 
 
 it would have been much more coherent.

 I understand.

I doubt it.

 I still detect the coherence.

 As most people in this group will detect the coherence.

You, sir, are a loon.

I've detected little coherence in _any_ of your postings.

-- 
Grant Edwards   grante Yow!  I want to TAKE IT
  at   HOME and DRESS IT UP in
   visi.comHOT PANTS!!
-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
Should I take answers serious?
[...]
Answer from people which do not respect coherence of writings?
[...]
I still detect the coherence.
As most people in this group will detect the coherence.
I don't. The second fragment is not even correct English
[...] - (limits of AI)
.
--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

Summarized Suggestions for the Python Team, PSF, Community):
-
-
-
An automated-build-process-system should allow community-members to add 
their targets (e.g. MinGW) into an special incubation section, which 
does not in any way affect the main section (which contains the 
official production targets, e.g. MSVC).

If an incubation section target proves over time as stable and 
supported (by community contributions), it is moved to the 
official-auto-build.

-
The python-team should
 * detect any efforts made within the community to support different 
build-targets
 * attract/engourage the authors/teams to include the patches/sources 
into the main build-system
 * attract/engourage the authors/teams to have open projects with an 
collaboration infrastructure.

-
The python-community and the PSF should support the python-team to 
fulfill the above tasks, thus the python-teams effort is limited to 
provide the infrastructure (incubation-build-targets).

-
-
-
Practical example:
Engourage the current pyMinGW project to become a open collaborative 
project:

http://jove.prohosting.com/iwave/ipython/pyMinGW.html
  * as a first step, setup a pyMinGW mailinglist
* intrested people can come together an communicate
  * as a second step, setup an SVN
* intrested projects could get your patch via SVN
  * as a third step, find intrested contributors
* which would help testing
* which would help you with coding
The python-team setups a build-target, which the collaborative pyMinGW 
project tries to make valid.

-
-
-
Now it's really time to close this thread.
.
--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-20 Thread Neil Hodgson

Martin v. Löwis:

 So I have to guess what you could have meant. If you want
 to be understood, you might have phrased the question like
 this:

 Should I take answers from people which do not respect coherence
 of writings serious?

   The main grammatical problem with the question is the use of an adjective
(serious) rather than an adverb (seriously) to modify the verb take.

Should I take answers seriously?

   I'd also add in an article to point to the particular answers to be
disregarded.

Should I take these answers seriously?

   Next problem is the disagreement in number between answers and answer
which breaks the connection just as separating the questions does.

Answers from people which do not respect coherence of writings?

   There are more problems to fix but this is a start. Grammatical errors
are often perceived as rudeness.

 Perhaps the question was meant rhetoric.

   Aghhh! He's got you doing it too.

   Neil -- Aussie ear for the foreign guy


-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-20 Thread Nick Vargish

Ilias Lazaridis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Now it's really time to close this thread.

I suspect this will fall of deaf ears, but I have to mention that you
do not get to close threads on Usenet. You can excuse yourself from
this one and stop replying to comments, but you don't get to
unilaterally declare a discussion over.

Just not how it works, though in this case an exception might be
welcomed...

Nick

-- 
#  sigmask  ||  0.2  ||  20030107  ||  public domain  ||  feed this to a python
print reduce(lambda x,y:x+chr(ord(y)-1),' Ojdl!Wbshjti!=obwAcboefstobudi/psh?')
-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-19 Thread Martin v. Löwis

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
My questions:
It appears that nobody has answered the questions, yet.
a) Why does the Python Foundation not provide additionally a binary 
version, compiled with MinGW or another open-source compiler?
We don't have the resources to do that.
b) Why does the Python Foundation not ensure, that the python 
source-code is directly compilable with MinGW?
In the past, we did not do that because we did not know how to do it.
With Python 2.4.1, we now had a contribution that should allow direct
compilation of extensions using MingW.
c) Why are the following efforts not _directly_ included in the python 
source code base?

http://jove.prohosting.com/iwave/ipython/pyMinGW.html
I believe this was because it was never contributed to Python.
d) Is it really neccessary that I dive into such adventures, to be able 
to do the most natural thing like: developing python extensions with 
MinGW?

http://starship.python.net/crew/kernr/mingw32/Notes.html
No. These instructions are outdated.
e) Is there any official statement available regarding the msvcr71.dll 
and other MS licensing issues?

[see several threads [Python-Dev] Is msvcr71.dll re-redistributable?]
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-February/thread.html
No, there isn't.
f) Are there any official (Python Foundation) statements / rationales 
available, which explain why the MinGW compiler is unsupported, although 
parts of the community obviously like to use it?

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/msg/dc3474e6c8053336
The official statement is that the MingW compiler is supported, indeed.
Regards,
Martin
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
My questions:
It appears that nobody has answered the questions, yet.
a) Why does the Python Foundation not provide additionally a binary 
version, compiled with MinGW or another open-source compiler?
We don't have the resources to do that.
Should a professional developer take python serious?
I mean, if the team does not manage at least the foundation of a 
multi-target automated-build-process?

[targets need not to be supported directly by the python team. They 
could be added/managed/maintained by community members]

b) Why does the Python Foundation not ensure, that the python 
source-code is directly compilable with MinGW?
In the past, we did not do that because we did not know how to do it.
With Python 2.4.1, we now had a contribution that should allow direct
compilation of extensions using MingW.
I'm refering to compile the main python source-code with MigGW.
[As a result, compilation of extensions under MinGW becomes trivial]
c) Why are the following efforts not _directly_ included in the python 
source code base?

http://jove.prohosting.com/iwave/ipython/pyMinGW.html
I believe this was because it was never contributed to Python.
ok
You should possibly engourage the author to create an collaborative project.
d) Is it really neccessary that I dive into such adventures, to be 
able to do the most natural thing like: developing python extensions 
with MinGW?

http://starship.python.net/crew/kernr/mingw32/Notes.html
No. These instructions are outdated.
ok
[the author has placed a remark now, avoiding this way further 
missunderstandings.]

e) Is there any official statement available regarding the msvcr71.dll 
and other MS licensing issues?

[see several threads [Python-Dev] Is msvcr71.dll re-redistributable?]
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-February/thread.html
No, there isn't.
Seeing the discussions which raise around this topic, I think the 
foundation should provide an official statement [e.g. contact MS to get 
an official statement].

f) Are there any official (Python Foundation) statements / rationales 
available, which explain why the MinGW compiler is unsupported, 
although parts of the community obviously like to use it?

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/msg/dc3474e6c8053336
The official statement is that the MingW compiler is supported, indeed.
Thus the official statement should be possibly corrected.
 * Compiling Python source-code under MinGW is not directly supported.
 * Compliling extensions under MinGW leads possibly to problems.
Regards,
Martin
.
--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

 Should a professional developer take python serious?

Unnecessary and deliberately provoking question - python is taken seriously,
e.g. by multi-billion dollar companies like google and zope. You OTH have
provided no evidence so far that you can be taken seriously as a developer
of whatever kind - neither professional nor hobbyist. So one has to
question the relevance of your demands.
 
 I mean, if the team does not manage at least the foundation of a
 multi-target automated-build-process?

Plain wrong. The team does very well manage that process - for a large
variety of platforms and compilers. Just not the compiler you perceive as
being a necessity. But that dead horse has been beaten enough already.


-- 
Regards,

Diez B. Roggisch
-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

 Unnecessary and deliberately provoking question - python is taken
 seriously, e.g. by multi-billion dollar companies like google and zope.

Of course zope corporation is not amongst the multi-billion dollar companies
- by now. But who knows :)

-- 
Regards,

Diez B. Roggisch
-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
Should a professional developer take python serious?
[...] - (ungentle babbling after disrupting coherence of writings)

Should a professional developer take python serious?
I mean, if the team does not manage at least the foundation of a 
multi-target automated-build-process?

[targets need not to be supported directly by the python team. They 
could be added/managed/maintained by community members]


.
--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

 Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
Should a professional developer take python serious?
 [...] - (ungentle babbling after disrupting coherence of writings)

And that from you *lol*

 I mean, if the team does not manage at least the foundation of a
 multi-target automated-build-process?

Repeating nonsense doesn't increase it's validity. Python makes use of
autoconf/automake to support a wide range of platforms and compilers. As
you obviously haven't heard of these and refuse to google, I was so kind to
research the respective links to the tools:

http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/
http://www.gnu.org/software/automake/

http://www.amath.washington.edu/~lf/tutorials/autoconf/

Enjoy the read.
 
 [targets need not to be supported directly by the python team. They
 could be added/managed/maintained by community members]

You already found the mingw-patch for building python. It is
added/managed/maintained by community members.

Just out of curiousity: How many python extensions are you planning to
write? And how many lines of pure python code have you written in your
life? 

-- 
Regards,

Diez B. Roggisch
-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-19 Thread Fredrik Lundh

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

 Should a professional developer take python serious?

yes.

/F 



-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
Should a professional developer take python serious?
[...] - (ungentle babbling after disrupting coherence of writings)
And that from you *lol*
Of course.
I respect the coherence of writings of my conversation partners.
[If they are in-topic / in-context]
I mean, if the team does not manage at least the foundation of a
multi-target automated-build-process?
Repeating nonsense doesn't increase it's validity. Python makes use of
[...] - (babbling, gentle links)
Thank you for the links.
They are irrelevant for me.
But other readers for sure will enjoy.
-
The automated-build-process-system should allow community-members to add 
their targets into an special incubation section, which does not in 
any way affect the main section (which contains the official 
production targets).

If an incubation section target proves over time as stable and 
supported, it is moved to the official-auto-build.

[targets need not to be supported directly by the python team. They
could be added/managed/maintained by community members]
You already found the mingw-patch for building python. It is
added/managed/maintained by community members.
This is a one-man-show, which does not invite to open collaboration 
(feedback is requested to closed email):

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/msg/98fa42dabff68db2
python [foundation, crew, dictator, ...] should engourage open 
collaboration, should engourage _collaboration_.

Just out of curiousity: How many python extensions are you planning to
write? 
I estimate 10 to 100, depending on abstractional capabilities of the 
extension system.

And how many lines of pure python code have you written in your life? 
0 (zero).
.
--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

 Thank you for the links.
 
 They are irrelevant for me.

As usual. 

 Just out of curiousity: How many python extensions are you planning to
 write?
 
 I estimate 10 to 100, depending on abstractional capabilities of the
 extension system.
 
 And how many lines of pure python code have you written in your life?
 
 0 (zero).

Awesome. Without any lines of code written, you have already identified the
areas where python lacks features that have to be overcome with C-written
extensions. As usual, I stand with my mouth agape over your near-psychic
abilities to analyze even the complexest matters without any actual
fiddling with the nitty gritty details. 

The day where you team up with Uri Geller - who will make even the worst
code running by just putting a printout of it on top of an image of the
master himself - is to be feared by all of us humble developers who
actually _deal_ with problems.

-- 
Regards,

Diez B. Roggisch
-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
Thank you for the links.
They are irrelevant for me.
As usual. 
sorry.
Just out of curiousity: How many python extensions are you planning to
write?
I estimate 10 to 100, depending on abstractional capabilities of the
extension system.
And how many lines of pure python code have you written in your life?
0 (zero).
Awesome. Without any lines of code written, you have already identified the
areas where python lacks features that have to be overcome with C-written
extensions. 
writing code is not the only way.
As usual, I stand with my mouth agape over your near-psychic
abilities to analyze even the complexest matters without any actual
fiddling with the nitty gritty details. 
Nothing special.
Abstraction, Generalization, Inhibition.
The day where you team up with Uri Geller - who will make even the worst
code running by just putting a printout of it on top of an image of the
master himself - is to be feared by all of us humble developers who
actually _deal_ with problems.
Don't worry.
Mr. Geller will be shortly hired by Sun Microsystems.
.
--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-18 Thread JanC

Robert Kern schreef:

 And yet there is not one company that has someone devoted full-time to 
 developing Python.

Except for 'future Python' aka PyPy...
http://codespeak.net/pipermail/pypy-dev/2004q4/001696.html

   :)

-- 
JanC

Be strict when sending and tolerant when receiving.
RFC 1958 - Architectural Principles of the Internet - section 3.9
-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-17 Thread Ilias Lazaridis

Stephen Kellett wrote:
[...]
closing thread
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/msg/f2ae9cdbe16676d1
.
--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-17 Thread Ilias Lazaridis

Mike Meyer wrote:
[...]
closing thread
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/msg/f2ae9cdbe16676d1
.
--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-17 Thread Ilias Lazaridis

Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
[...]
closing thread
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/msg/f2ae9cdbe16676d1
.
--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-16 Thread Peter Maas

Michael Hoffman schrieb:
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
But don't act like the volunteers who develop Python owe you a version
of Python that runs out of the box on MinGW. They don't, anymore than you
owe *me* a version of Python that runs out of the box on MinGW.
Please, leave him alone. When he posted here first his tone made me
suspicious and I did some searching. Replies like yours are exactly
what he wants. He is here to fight and to waste your time. But if
you enjoy this ... go ahead ;) I don't so this will be my only post
in this thread.
--
---
Peter Maas,  M+R Infosysteme,  D-52070 Aachen,  Tel +49-241-93878-0
E-mail 'cGV0ZXIubWFhc0BtcGx1c3IuZGU=\n'.decode('base64')
---
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

Tim Peters wrote:
[Ilias Lazaridis]
...
Let's see:
The process would be:
a) A Python Foundation official states: of course we accept diversity
and of course we are intrested that our source-code-base compiles
directly with MinGW (and other compilers).
Well, I'm a Director of the Python Software Foundation, and my view is
the more platforms the merrier.  
I extract: you are intrested, that the source-code-base compiles 
directly with MinGW (and other compilers).

Thus you should be intrested, that existent patches are incorporated 
into the source-code-base.

The suggested process ist: use of #defines whenever possible, to avoid 
influence on the existent behaviour of the code.

But I'm not paid to work on Python,
and I don't have time to volunteer to help MinGW along, so I don't
anticipate that I'll do anything here beyond writing this reply.
You have done already very much.
But should should take some time to evaluate community needs.
I think you're mistaken about the role the PSF plays here.  For
example, the PSF does no development work on Python -- all work on
Python comes from volunteers, and the PSF can't tell anyone what to
do.  
I understand.
PSF has no influence on the development. I've read a little around, and 
start to understand:

http://www.python.org/psf/records/board/minutes-2004-11-09.html
The PSF did start a grant program last year, and a proposal to
[...] - (funding)
I don't think that a founding is neccessary.
This effort could be driven by the intrested community members (which 
obviously exist).

b) the pyMinGW developer states: I am intrested that my patches are
included within the main python source code base [of course this
contribution would deserve to be mentioned somewhere]
I mean the developer of those patches:
http://jove.prohosting.com/iwave/ipython/pyMinGW.html
He must be intrested that his patches are incorporated to the main 
source code base, which would render his website useless [but of course 
not his efforts and reputation].

[Of course his website could still serve as an central point for 
intrested MinGW specific contributors.]

c) One part of the Python Community states: look those loosers, like to
use MinGW toolkit - pah! I'll continue to use my super-optimizing, xx%
faster results, less hassle Microsoft-Compiler
From the replies within this thread, i've extracted that some community 
members would think somehow this way.

d) One part of the Python Community states: I'm very happy that my
toolset of choice gets official support, to which I can contribute as a
community member
From the replies within this thread, i've extracted that some community 
members would think somehow this way.

e) there is no point e. People start simply to cooperate, thus python's
evolution is ensured.
A solid source-code-base and centralized efforts are a fundamentall part 
for the evolution of python.

Sorry, I didn't grasp the point of b thru e.
I've tried to clarify.
-
Now, can you please tell me the process I have to follow to suggest the 
following (to the PSF or to the programmers or to the decision takers), 
possibly to get at least a vote on it:

Please ensure that the source-code-base compliles directly with MinGW. 
The suggested process is to:

  * provide the infrastructure
(e.g. mailinglist, issue- tracking-category,... )
  * Notify the community about this subproject to channelise efforts
  * include existing MinGW specific patches
  * ensure future verificatioin of changes,
* optimal:due to an automated build-system
* or simpler: due to community-feedback

I've read a little about the processes:
http://www.python.org/dev/
http://www.python.org/dev/culture.html
http://www.python.org/dev/process.html
But I can't figure it out.
... 
Good night to all.

Likewise!
.
--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

Mike Meyer wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If it is a programming language, the requirement using an open-source
toolchain is a rational and valid one.
It is. However, mingW has nothing to do with using an open-sourcer
toolchain.
Python runs in an environment with a full, open-source tool chain. You
[...] - (twisting context and personal requirements)
sorry, no further comment.
.
--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

Robert Kern wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
[...]
Questions and suggestions are don't count for much in this
community. Code and well-written patches do.
Stop wasting time on c.l.py and get to work! If you can't do
that, then this is not the community you are looking for.
Please speak for yourself.
I think that my participation in the community for the past six years
 and a rational examination of the responses you have received so far
 qualify me, just a little bit, to conclude that this community does
not tolerate your kind of behaviour well.
I do tolerate their behaviour.
I have to.
This is a public resource.
If you want one that does so tolerate your behaviour, you need to
keep looking.
I don't need to look.
They read, silently, deriving their conclusions.
About me.
About you.
About the python community.
[It is of course sad, that the bad manners / missing focusation on 
the context of the actively writing part reflects directly to the whole 
community.]

There are many commercial systems around python.
And yet there is not one company that has someone devoted
full-time to developing Python. Not even Guido.
Who's Guido?
The guy who wrote Python originally and is still the head developer.
ok
http://www.python.org/~guido/
Most of core-Python development happens in people's spare, unpaid
time.
Volunteerism is the core of this community. Trust me.
even if:
Volunteerism does not exclude Professionalism.
Volunteerism does not, indeed, exclude professionalism. However,
being professional does not entail satisfying the desires of everyone
who asks. Being professional does not mean that volunteerism is not
the driving force of this community.
If this does not appeal to you, then this is not the community that
you are looking for.
I've not understood what you've written.
But I understand that it is not relevant to the topic.
So please stop this volunteerism-stuff.
No. You are asking others to volunteer their time, or perhaps, 
alternately, the PSF and other businesses to volunteer their
money to fund people's time to satisfy *your* wants. I am asking
you to volunteer *your* time to satisfy *your* wants,
I'm already doing this.
Okay, let me clarify: 
[...] - (processing model)
Your suggestions affecting my processing model are irrelevant.
or alternately, stop writing questionnaires and bothering us.
Feel free to ignore the threads.
I would have been more than happy to until my web page was used. Now
I feel some obligation to correct some things.
You webpage is a public resource.
And it was terribly outdated.
Now you have corrected your website.
Thank you.
And please speak for yourself.
I am speaking as a member of this community, not necessarily for this
 community. But I do have some experience with how this community
behaves and how it responds to people who behave like you do. I know
that they do not mix well at all.
If you want a community that does tolerate this behaviour, you need
to keep looking.
I'm not looking for such a community.
Note that this reaction is pretty specific to you and not to
other newcomers. Most newcomers do not carry around a sense of
entitlement that could flatten a small village. Thus, they are
treated with respect and helpfulness. We would appreciate it if
you would emulate these people. On a purely pragmatic note, you
have to admit that they are getting much better help than you
are.
I get the help that I want.
You could do it much more efficiently.
[...] - (processing suggestions detected, not readed)
sorry, my processing is not the topic here.
If you like to help me and other newcomers, please give me
simple some answers on the initial questions.
I did provide some answers. Please review them again.
Please have the gentleness [against me and the current/future
readers] to answer within the context of the original writings.
I will be more careful in the future.
You can still give your answers within the main thread, thus they don't
get lost in this huge thread.
.
--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

Delaney, Timothy C (Timothy) wrote:
Stephen Kellett wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ilias Lazaridis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
And yet there is not one company that has someone devoted full-time
to  developing Python. Not even Guido.
Who's Guido?
LOL Falling off my chair!!
See, the problem is that you have to go all the way to the second FAQ in
order to find out who Guido is. Obviously it needs to be more prominent
on the Python web site.
Oh - you mean Ilias didn't actually *read* anything on the Python web
site? My bad.
Illias - I'm assuming you are not a troll (despite the contrary
evidence) and am going to direct you to a site with all the answers you
need.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
I know this document.
It has no relevance to me.
Tim Delaney
.
--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-15 Thread Fredrik Lundh

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

 http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

 I know this document.

 It has no relevance to me.

QOTW! 



-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

Stephen Kellett wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Horsley 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes

Stephen Kellett wrote:
Who's Guido?
  LOL Falling off my chair!!
I think the expression you are looking for is ROFL!
:-) Yes, but with that I could've been standing up before ending up on 
the floor. I wrote it as I felt it!. Its a really good demonstration as 
to the depth of the research performed by Illias.
I thin I understand what you mean.
Guido van Rossum is the project's lead developer. In recognition of 
this role, he's sometimes jokingly called the Benevolent Dictator For 
Life, or BDFL; the acronym is occasionally used in python-dev postings, 
especially in a context such as making that change will require a BDFL 
pronouncement. In theory the BDFL makes all the decisions about what 
goes in to Python and what doesn't. 
source: http://www.python.org/dev/process.html

I'm waiting for the Who's Matz? comment in comp.lang.ruby
Stephen
.
--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

Simon Brunning wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:23:08 +0200, Ilias Lazaridis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(snip)

But if those answers above were of official nature, I must seriously
rethink if I can rely on _any_ system which is based on python, as the
foundation and the community do not care about essential needs and
requirements.
I couldn't agree more. You need to find a community that *does* care
about essential needs. Might I recommend Perl or Ruby?
you can review this thread.
[EVALUATION] - E01: The Java Failure - May Ruby Helps?
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/msg/676a2fbaf48046ac
Currently, I tend more to python, but I don't think that I can keep my 
initial enthusiasm up.

.
--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

Stephen Kellett wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ilias Lazaridis 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes

the community do not care about essential needs and requirements.
Wrong. They do. They just don't care about *your* essential needs and 
requirements which *you* want *others* to fulfill at *their* cost. As 
others have said, do some work yourself.
your accousations are false.
please review my initial message.
Stephen
.
--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
One of the most funny things within open-source is that switching:
first:
we have powerfull solutions which beat this and that
then:
hey, this is just volunteer work
I don't see the contradiction here. It beats a great deal of commercial
solutions in a lot of ways. But not on every single one of these. And the
_reason_ for beating commercial software in certain aspects is exactly that
somebody stood up and volunteered. Obviously you aren't interested in the
more labour-intensive parts of the os-development.
Sometimes the core-team must provide infrastructure for volunteers to 
contribute (as in this MinGW case).

http://lazaridis.com/core/product/case.html
But if those answers above were of official nature, I must seriously
rethink if I can rely on _any_ system which is based on python, as the
foundation and the community do not care about essential needs and
requirements.
They might not care about _your_ perceived essential needs. But as lots of
people use python and python based solutions with great commercial success,
you might think of reviewing your needs more critical. After all, there is
no _perfect_ system for all needs.
MinGW compatibility is not my need.
It is an community need.
.
--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

Stephen Kellett wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ilias Lazaridis 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes

The answer to most of your questions is, Because no one has yet 
volunteered their time and effort to get the job done.
this answer do not fit in most questions.
please review them again.
There you go. Failed the test. He is an AI. A human wouldn't make this 
mistake.
Even an simple AI would detect:
there are other reasons behind the decision to not support the MinGW 
open-source-complier directly out of the main source-code base.

Stephen
.
--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

Ilias Lazaridis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 MinGW compatibility is not my need.

Then why do you waste so much effort whining about it not being given
to you?

 It is an community need.

Based on the evidence at hand, this is a false statement.

  mike
-- 
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-15 Thread bruno modulix

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
there are other reasons behind the decision to not support the MinGW 
open-source-complier directly out of the main source-code base.

Yes, of course. The reason is they are lying about their commitment to 
open source. They are currently trying to port Python to .NET, and when 
done they'll retire the current implementation and lock everyone to a 
proprietary platform. I know it's hard to believe, but there are clues...

--
bruno desthuilliers
python -c print '@'.join(['.'.join([w[::-1] for w in p.split('.')]) for 
p in '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'.split('@')])
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

bruno modulix wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
there are other reasons behind the decision to not support the MinGW 
open-source-complier directly out of the main source-code base.

Yes, of course. The reason is they are lying about their commitment to 
open source. They are currently trying to port Python to .NET, and when 
done they'll retire the current implementation and lock everyone to a 
proprietary platform. I know it's hard to believe, but there are clues...
impressive.
but things are much simpler.
.
--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

Mike Meyer wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MinGW compatibility is not my need.
Then why do you waste so much effort whining about it not being given
to you?
It is an community need.
Based on the evidence at hand, this is a false statement.
  mike
MinGW compatibility is not [only] my need.
It is an community need [at least partially]
.
--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-15 Thread bruno modulix

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
bruno modulix wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
there are other reasons behind the decision to not support the MinGW 
open-source-complier directly out of the main source-code base.

Yes, of course. The reason is they are lying about their commitment to 
open source. They are currently trying to port Python to .NET, and 
when done they'll retire the current implementation and lock everyone 
to a proprietary platform. I know it's hard to believe, but there are 
clues...

impressive.
but things are much simpler.
Could you be more prolific ?
--
bruno desthuilliers
python -c print '@'.join(['.'.join([w[::-1] for w in p.split('.')]) for 
p in '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'.split('@')])
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-15 Thread Adam DePrince

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 13:29, Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
 Mike Meyer wrote:
  Ilias Lazaridis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
 MinGW compatibility is not my need.
  
  Then why do you waste so much effort whining about it not being given
  to you?
  
 It is an community need.
  
  Based on the evidence at hand, this is a false statement.
  
mike
 
 MinGW compatibility is not [only] my need.
 
 It is an community need [at least partially]

And herein lies the beauty of the noble meritocratic free software
movement.  

If the community needs it, a member of said community has both complete
unfettered freedom and a supportive environment to make it.   Any amount
of success at such an endeavor, even a feeble failure of an attempt,
would bring kudos the hero who attempts such a feat and possibly
organize unfathomable resources in the attendance of such a lofty goal.

Make us proud Ilias.  But whatever you do, don't beg.


Adam DePrince 

-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

Adam DePrince wrote:
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 13:29, Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
Mike Meyer wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
MinGW compatibility is not [only] my need.
It is an community need [at least partially]
And herein lies the beauty of the noble meritocratic free software
movement.  

If the community needs it, a member of said community has both complete
unfettered freedom and a supportive environment to make it.   
Which is this supportive environment?
Any amount
of success at such an endeavor, even a feeble failure of an attempt,
would bring kudos the hero who attempts such a feat and possibly
organize unfathomable resources in the attendance of such a lofty goal.
Make us proud Ilias.  But whatever you do, don't beg.
I don't beg.
If you think this, than please reread the thread (or at least the 
root-trunk)

Adam DePrince 
.
--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

bruno modulix wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
bruno modulix wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
there are other reasons behind the decision to not support the MinGW 
open-source-complier directly out of the main source-code base.

Yes, of course. The reason is they are lying about their commitment 
to open source. They are currently trying to port Python to .NET, and 
when done they'll retire the current implementation and lock everyone 
to a proprietary platform. I know it's hard to believe, but there are 
clues...
impressive.
but things are much simpler.
Could you be more prolific ?
Please explain the word prolific.
.
--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-15 Thread Joe Francia

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
Mike Meyer wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MinGW compatibility is not my need.

Then why do you waste so much effort whining about it not being given
to you?
It is an community need.

Based on the evidence at hand, this is a false statement.
  mike

MinGW compatibility is not [only] my need.
It is an community need [at least partially]
You keep using that word community. I do not think it means what you 
think it means.

--
Soraia: http://www.soraia.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-15 Thread Tim Peters

[Tim Peters]
 Well, I'm a Director of the Python Software Foundation, and my view is
 the more platforms the merrier.

[Ilias Lazaridis]
 I extract: you are intrested, that the source-code-base compiles
 directly with MinGW (and other compilers).

Sure, I'm in favor of that.  I'm also in favor of world peace, for
that matter wink.

 Thus you should be intrested, that existent patches are incorporated
 into the source-code-base.

That one doesn't follow.  It follows that I'd like to see existing
patches _reviewed_, but not necessarily that I'd be in favor of
incorporating them if I had time to review them myself.

 The suggested process ist: use of #defines whenever possible, to avoid
 influence on the existent behaviour of the code.

Patches are reviewed on technical merit, balancing the tradeoffs;
#defines are actually discouraged when it's possible to do a thing
without introducing platform-specific #ifdefs.  A problem is that a
patch won't get reviewed unless a volunteer does a review, and we've
got an increasing backlog of unreviewed patches because of that.  The
most effective way for a person P to get their patch reviewed now is
for P to volunteer to review 5 other patches first.  There are a few
Python developers who have promised, in return, to review P's patch
then.

 But I'm not paid to work on Python, and I don't have time to
volunteer to help
 MinGW along, so I don't anticipate that I'll do anything here beyond writing
 this reply.
 
 You have done already very much.

 But should should take some time to evaluate community needs.

I don't know what that means, but plausible meanings sound futile.  No
matter what I think the community needs, it's not going to happen
unless somebody else does the work:  I can't tell anyone else what to
do.  Heck, I don't even want to.

It sounds like you might want development driven by some kind of
marketing study.  Nothing wrong with that, if so, but it's not how
open source works.  An entity like the Python Business Forum would
presumably be more open to that tack (although I doubt the PBF would
have a natural interest in MinGW).

Minority platforms generally don't get far unless a truly dedicated
volunteer shows up.  For example, Jason Tishler does an excellent job
on Python's Cygwin port, as does Andrew MacIntyre on OS/2 EMX, and
they've both done so for years.  Nobody asked them to do this (AFAIK),
it's more that nobody could _stop_ them from doing it. They're
motivated by love of the platforms they take care of.  In the absence
of anyone willing to pay someone else here, that's what's truly
needed.

 ...
 This effort could be driven by the intrested community members (which
 obviously exist).

Then maybe they need to be better organized, and/or more assertive in
pushing their interests.  If someone is getting left behind here, they
should speak up on the python-dev list.

...
 Now, can you please tell me the process I have to follow to suggest the
 following (to the PSF or to the programmers or to the decision takers),
 possibly to get at least a vote on it:

No such thing will happen -- forget that.  For MinGW to be supported
forever, it's necessary and sufficient that a specific person
volunteer to support MinGW forever.  If that person goes away, so does
the support they provided; it's the same story for Cygwin, and even
for Linux and native Windows.  A difference is that Linux and native
Windows attract more than enough volunteers so that ongoing support
seems statistically certain.  But, e.g., if Andrew MacIntyre went
away, I wouldn't bet on OS/2 EMX support continuing.

 Please ensure that the source-code-base compliles directly with MinGW.
 The suggested process is to:
 
   * provide the infrastructure
 (e.g. mailinglist, issue- tracking-category,... )
 
   * Notify the community about this subproject to channelise efforts
 
   * include existing MinGW specific patches
 
   * ensure future verificatioin of changes,
 * optimal:due to an automated build-system
 * or simpler: due to community-feedback
 

If a specific person or group wants to volunteer to do all that, year
after year, they can start doing it today.  The PSF won't do any of it
(although the PSF will fund and arrange to run the Python website, and
one way or another supply a bug tracker, source-control system, and
other infrastructure for keeping the Python project as a whole
running).
-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

Joe Francia wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
[...]
MinGW compatibility is not [only] my need.
It is an community need [at least partially]
You keep using that word community. I do not think it means what you 
think it means.
The community is everyone around python (including me at this moment).
We could call i userbase, too, but one needs not to be a actual user to 
be a community member.

what do you think about?
.
--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-15 Thread Adam DePrince

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 14:25, Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
 Adam DePrince wrote:
  On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 13:29, Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
 Mike Meyer wrote:
 Ilias Lazaridis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 [...]
 MinGW compatibility is not [only] my need.
 
 It is an community need [at least partially]
  
  And herein lies the beauty of the noble meritocratic free software
  movement.  
  
  If the community needs it, a member of said community has both complete
  unfettered freedom and a supportive environment to make it.   
 
 Which is this supportive environment?

You're on it.  You drive a car?  You have to treat it right to get what
you want, right?  Same here.  Ask correctly, and you will get your
answers.  

 
  Any amount
  of success at such an endeavor, even a feeble failure of an attempt,
  would bring kudos the hero who attempts such a feat and possibly
  organize unfathomable resources in the attendance of such a lofty goal.
  
  Make us proud Ilias.  But whatever you do, don't beg.
 
 I don't beg.


Really, remember this:

   My questions:   a) Why does the Python Foundation not provide
 additionally a binary version, compiled with MinGW or another
 open-source compiler?

Many languages have the notion of the rhetorical question.   Also
known as the loaded question.  Your statement comes across partly as a
challenge, partly as a demand.  In English, American English at least,
if you want to challenge somebody over a perceived failure ask them why
they didn't do it.  English language culutres tend to be very
metrocratic.  American history glorifies the self capable (and somewhat
violent) cowboy.  Austrians have their love of daisy cutting.  I could
go on, but language carriers its own cultural barriers. 

You didn't intent to, but you begging.   Sure, you save some face by not
obviously groveling, but that only makes the slight worse.  Now somebody
asked that you to read
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html.   Read it in its
entirety, and come back later.  

Now I have the *real* reason that they didn't do this.  Nobody cares,
except for you.  If you care enough, make the binary package yourself
and give it to the community.  Take home the source, compile it, get it
working, and *you* can become the hero of the Python Foundation that
provides this service.  Being that you have a need, if the binaries you
want don't just appear, it can either be assumed that you don't care
enough, or have the ability to do the work yourself.

Even if you fail miserably, come back, tell us what you tried, how you
failed, and the denizens of this site will happily (try to) guide you.

Good luck getting what you want by trolling.

Adam DePrince 


-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-15 Thread Grant Edwards

On 2005-02-15, Adam DePrince [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 You didn't intent to, but you begging.   Sure, you save some face by not
 obviously groveling, but that only makes the slight worse.  Now somebody
 asked that you to read
 http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html.   Read it in its
 entirety, and come back later.  

The wanker already stated that the smart questions essay
doesn't apply to him.  I think he may be right: it only applies
to people who actually want questions answered and problems
solved. I don't think he wants to do/solve/answer anything. He
just wants to piss and moan about how nobody will jump when he
tells them to.

-- 
Grant Edwards   grante Yow!  I always liked FLAG
  at   DAY!!
   visi.com
-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

Adam DePrince wrote:
[...]
If the community needs it, a member of said community has both complete
unfettered freedom and a supportive environment to make it.   
Which is this supportive environment?
You're on it.  You drive a car?  You have to treat it right to get what
you want, right?  Same here.  Ask correctly, and you will get your
answers.  
Your interpretation/definition of asking correctly is irrelevant to me.
[...]
Make us proud Ilias.  But whatever you do, don't beg.
I don't beg.
Really, remember this:
 My questions:   a) Why does the Python Foundation not provide
additionally a binary version, compiled with MinGW or another
open-source compiler?
Many languages have the notion of the rhetorical question.   Also
[...] - (faulty interpretations, suggesting processing model)
no comments.
.
--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

Ilias Lazaridis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Mike Meyer wrote:
It is an community need.
 Based on the evidence at hand, this is a false statement.
 It is an community need [at least partially]

Repeating a falsehood will not make it true.

Can you offer anything besides your own whining to back this claim up?

mike
-- 
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

Ilias Lazaridis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Joe Francia wrote:
 Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
 [...]
 MinGW compatibility is not [only] my need.

 It is an community need [at least partially]
 You keep using that word community. I do not think it means what
 you think it means.

 The community is everyone around python (including me at this moment).

Then clearly, MingW is *not* a community need. I'm around Python. That
makes me part of the community by your definition. I have no need for
MingW (in fact, it doesn't run on anything I do development
on). Ergo, MingW is not a community need.

 mike
-- 
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

Mike Meyer wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mike Meyer wrote:
It is an community need.
Based on the evidence at hand, this is a false statement.
It is an community need [at least partially]
Repeating a falsehood will not make it true.
Can you offer anything besides your own whining to back this claim up?
please review my initial posting.
.
--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

Mike Meyer wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joe Francia wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
[...]
MinGW compatibility is not [only] my need.
It is an community need [at least partially]
You keep using that word community. I do not think it means what
you think it means.
The community is everyone around python (including me at this moment).
Then clearly, MingW is *not* a community need. I'm around Python. That
makes me part of the community by your definition. I have no need for
MingW (in fact, it doesn't run on anything I do development
on). Ergo, MingW is not a community need.
I see.
Time to close this thread.
Nothing essential anymore.
.
--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

Tim Peters wrote:
[...] - (thorough comments)
Thank you very much for your thoroug comments.
.
--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

I'm 'closing' this thread now [means that I do possibly not respond 
anymore to messages].

Thank you for your time and effort.
.
--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-15 Thread Joe Francia

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
Joe Francia wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
[...]
MinGW compatibility is not [only] my need.
It is an community need [at least partially]

You keep using that word community. I do not think it means what you 
think it means.

The community is everyone around python (including me at this moment).
We could call i userbase, too, but one needs not to be a actual user to 
be a community member.

Well, I'm glad you cleared that up (even though you clearly missed the 
Princess Bride reference).  As a member *and* user in the Python 
community, I hereby declare MinGW as unnecessary to the successful 
continuation of Python.  When I need to compile extensions on win32, 
VS.NET works splendidly.  (And gcc covers my FreeBSD  Linux extension 
compiling needs - I have no unusual demands or expectations that the 
Python community will support, say, the Intel C compiler on those 
platforms).

 what do you think about?
Oh, different things at different times, but it's usually not about 
MinGW support for Python.

--
Soraia: http://www.soraia.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-15 Thread Grant Edwards

On 2005-02-15, bruno modulix [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

 impressive.
 
 but things are much simpler.

 Could you be more prolific ?

Good god, let's hope not!

-- 
Grant Edwards   grante Yow!  I'm working under
  at   the direct orders of WAYNE
   visi.comNEWTON to deport consenting
   adults!
-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-15 Thread Jeff Shannon

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
Adam DePrince wrote:
[...]
You're on it.  You drive a car?  You have to treat it right to get what
you want, right?  Same here.  Ask correctly, and you will get your
answers.  
Your interpretation/definition of asking correctly is irrelevant to me.

Interpretation is irrelevant.  Logic is irrelevant.  You will be 
assimilated.

Jeff Shannon
Technician/Programmer
Credit International
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-15 Thread Bruno Desthuilliers

Ilias Lazaridis a écrit :
bruno modulix wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
(snip)
impressive.
but things are much simpler.
Could you be more prolific ?

Please explain the word prolific.
Say more
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-15 Thread Stephen Kellett

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ilias Lazaridis 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
The community is everyone around python (including me at this moment).
Based on the communities response to you (and the similar response you 
are getting in c.l.ruby) you are not a member of either community as you 
continue to deliberately ignore the accepted norms of interaction with 
the community. I'll list them here for you (again).

1) Do some research yourself (i.e try to answer your own questions)
2) When you have problems tell the group what you did, what the results 
were and what the problem was.
3) If the community thinks you have done 1 and 2 you will most likely 
get a helpful response. Some people will be generous and help you 
anyway.
After a while people will realise you have no interest in doing any work 
yourself and give you a hard time (the c.l.ruby group appear to have hit 
this threshold today) until you mend your ways. Do 1 and 2 and you'll 
get your questions answered much faster than your current approach.

The most amazing thing is the number of times you've been told this by 
so many different people and so many different newsgroups and yet you 
*still don't get it*.

Stephen
--
Stephen Kellett
Object Media Limitedhttp://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk
RSI Information:http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk/rsi.html
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-15 Thread Stephen Kellett

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ilias Lazaridis 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
MinGW compatibility is not [only] my need.
It is an community need [at least partially]
Clearly not. If it was, using your logic, it would already exist.
--
Stephen Kellett
Object Media Limitedhttp://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk
RSI Information:http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk/rsi.html
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-15 Thread Adam DePrince

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 17:24, Jeff Shannon wrote:
 Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
 
  Adam DePrince wrote:
  [...]
  You're on it.  You drive a car?  You have to treat it right to get what
  you want, right?  Same here.  Ask correctly, and you will get your
  answers.  
  Your interpretation/definition of asking correctly is irrelevant to me.
 Interpretation is irrelevant.  Logic is irrelevant.  You will be 
 assimilated.

Oy!  Logic is relevant ... let me explain.

Let this be a gentle reminder to all, the primary hazard of generosity
is that the recipient will lack a corresponding sense of appreciation. 
I've heard others around here say that they will risk feeding a troll on
the off chance that they may actually enlighten someone.  

Further investigation (http://lazaridis.com/core/project/email) suggests
that it is the Python community that is at fault.  There is a scepter
haunting the python-list.  Ilias, we misjudged you and mistook your
hyper efficiency and superior cognitive capacity for rudeness.  As I
reflect upon this exchange I now see the inefficient absence of
terseness and lack of condescending ridicule.  I call forth on all
Pythoners to adopt your style of thought, learn to spell Nietzsche, put
aside their personal consideration and accept their subservience to the
common good (as defined by Ilias) and the nubile newbie.  Think of what
we could acheive.  We could be just like gwbasic!  As hip and modern as
the Kondrad Zuse's Z3.  Pythoner's Unite!

Ilias, I ceed.  You are a superman in the most misinterpreted sense of
the word.  I invoke Gershwin's law and end this thread.   May I bear
your children?


Adam DePrince 


-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

Ilias Lazaridis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Mike Meyer wrote:
 Ilias Lazaridis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Mike Meyer wrote:

It is an community need.

Based on the evidence at hand, this is a false statement.

It is an community need [at least partially]
 Repeating a falsehood will not make it true.
 Can you offer anything besides your own whining to back this claim
 up?

 please review my initial posting.

Done. Now answer the question.

  mike
-- 
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

Michael Hoffman wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
a) Why does the Python Foundation not provide additionally a binary
 version, compiled with MinGW or another open-source compiler?
I use a binary version of Python compiled with an open-source
compiler on Windows that was provided by someone else.
Can you please point me (and the readers) to this resource?
b) Why does the Python Foundation not ensure, that the python 
source-code is directly compilable with MinGW?
Why should they? It already runs on Windows with a freely available 
compiler.
Obvious: Courtesy [against the userbase needs]
Obvious: Consistency [same code-base across different compiler]
f) Are there any official (Python Foundation) statements /
rationales available, which explain why the MinGW compiler is
unsupported, although parts of the community obviously like to use
it?
Not to my knowledge.
[...] - (guess  comments)
thank you.
Why don't you solve this problem and produce a patched version of 
Python that does what you want.
I'm not intrested in patching.
I'm intrested in a stable environment, supported by the original
implementors.
I need a solid fundament for my development.
[google is _not_ a fried here. I like to have a stable development
 environment, which is supported by the official projects, thus it
can pass quality-assurance without beeing afraid about every next
release.]
Then you have several options:
a) use a supported development environment
Requirement: full open-source tool-chain.
b) do the work yourself to support MinGW
this would be not neccessary, as others do this work already.
My question (that you've ommited) was: why does the python foundation 
not include this efforts?

[REQUOTE]
c) Why are the following efforts not _directly_ included in the
python source code base?
http://jove.prohosting.com/iwave/ipython/pyMinGW.html
above link found in this thread:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/msg/c9f0444c467de525
[/REQUOTE]
c) pay someone else to do the work
But don't act like the volunteers who develop Python owe you a
version of Python that runs out of the box on MinGW. They don't,
anymore than you owe *me* a version of Python that runs out of the
box on MinGW.
I think Python is a serious Open Source System, driven by the Python 
Foundation.

Serious Open Source Systems should serve the basic needs of their 
community, especially if there are many depending systems.

If it is a programming language, the requirement using an open-source 
toolchain is a rational and valid one.

The Python Foundation ingores this requirement, this way creating a
chain of neccessary manual uncontrolled actions.
This does not increase my trust in python [e.g. as an exchange for JAVA].
Now why haven't *you* produced a version of Python that is directly 
compileable with MinGW? Time's a-wasting.
I have stated already that I am a newcomer to python.
[you should really avoid this tenor. Python is not an open-source
project of a few teenies. It's a serious programming-language, which 
could be adopted by e.g. more phone-manufacturers (after Nokia)]

-
The Python Foundation could create an official sub-project to create an 
automated build target based on the MinGW toolchain. I am sure that many 
community members would be more than happy to contribute.

.
--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-14 Thread Michael Hoffman

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
Michael Hoffman wrote:
Can you please point me (and the readers) to this resource?
http://www.cygwin.com/
Why don't you solve this problem and produce a patched version of 
Python that does what you want.
I'm not intrested in patching.
I'm intrested in a stable environment, supported by the original
implementors.
And the core developers are not interested in doing more than what they
have already done without further help (e.g. from you). Surely you can
not interested as you have justified your own inaction through it.
This does not increase my trust in python [e.g. as an exchange for JAVA].
You cannot run all Java programs on an open source compiler, so I guess
it's an imperfect world for you. And to get GCJ to run on MinGW you have to
add a lot of patches.
Now why haven't *you* produced a version of Python that is directly 
compileable with MinGW? Time's a-wasting.
I have stated already that I am a newcomer to python.
[you should really avoid this tenor.
And you should avoid yours. Your sense of entitlement is palpable.
 Python is not an open-source project of a few teenies. It's a serious
 programming-language, which could be adopted by e.g. more
 phone-manufacturers (after Nokia)]
The idea that MinGW support would affect that is laughable.
--
Michael Hoffman
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

Miki Tebeka wrote:
Hello Ilias,
d) Is it really neccessary that I dive into such adventures, to be able 
to do the most natural thing like: developing python extensions with 
MinGW?
Writing a setup.py and running 
python setup.py build_ext --compiler=mingw32
works for me *without* any more work. Things can't get much simpler.
looks really simple.
-
but:
the central problem still exists:
** For a Python which was built with Cygwin, all should work without 
any of these following steps. **
source:
http://www.python.org/doc/2.2.3/inst/non-ms-compilers.html#SECTION000312000

-
the problem is that Python binary distributions for MS Windows do not 
include import libraries for popular gcc based tools: cygwin and mingw32
source: http://www.zope.org/Members/als/tips/win32_mingw_modules

-
the solutions is possibly (copied from another answer):
The Python Foundation could create an official sub-project to create an 
automated build target based on the MinGW toolchain. I am sure that many 
community members would be more than happy to contribute.

.
--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

David Fraser wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
[...]
Just to add to all the other answers:
Don't just complain, submit patches and work at keeping them maintained. 
If this is done for a while it may be more of an argument for having 
them included
I do not just complain.
I've spend already hours with writing down the questionaire [which you 
have successfully ignored].

.
--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-14 Thread Robert Kern

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
David Fraser wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
[...]
Just to add to all the other answers:
Don't just complain, submit patches and work at keeping them 
maintained. If this is done for a while it may be more of an argument 
for having them included

I do not just complain.
I've spend already hours with writing down the questionaire [which you 
have successfully ignored].
Why don't you spend hours writing code and submitting working patches, 
instead? That's what I did years ago in the original effort to get mingw 
to compile Python extensions (one of the, woefully out-dated, web-pages 
you cite is mine. I have now edited it to clarify the situation so 
others do not come away from it as you did).

Just writing questionnaires *is* actually just complaining.
The answer to most of your questions is, Because no one has yet 
volunteered their time and effort to get the job done.

If this is important to you, you need to step up yourself and get it 
done and not expect other people to volunteer their unpaid time to 
satisfy your whims.

The open source Python community is driven by volunteerism, not a sense 
of entitlement. If this does not appeal to you, then perhaps the Python 
community is not the right one for you.

--
Robert Kern
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
 Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
  -- Richard Harter
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

Michael Hoffman wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
Michael Hoffman wrote:
Can you please point me (and the readers) to this resource?
http://www.cygwin.com/
thank you.
as far as I know, the created executables are bounded to the GPL.
Thus this is not intresting to me.
Why don't you solve this problem and produce a patched version of 
Python that does what you want.
I'm not intrested in patching.
I'm intrested in a stable environment, supported by the original
implementors.
And the core developers [...]
please let them speak for themselves.
This does not increase my trust in python [e.g. as an exchange for JAVA].
You cannot run all Java programs on an open source compiler, so I guess
it's an imperfect world for you. And to get GCJ to run on MinGW you have to
add a lot of patches.
Python is from its nature open-source.
The requirement open-source-tool-chain fits naturally.
Now why haven't *you* produced a version of Python that is directly 
compileable with MinGW? Time's a-wasting.
I have stated already that I am a newcomer to python.
[you should really avoid this tenor.
And you should avoid yours. Your sense of entitlement is palpable.
Entitlements result out of reason.
I'm just pointing out.
I've stated simple questions [which are still unanswered]
And I've stated rationales.
Python is not an open-source project of a few teenies. It's a serious
programming-language, which could be adopted by e.g. more
phone-manufacturers (after Nokia)]
The idea that MinGW support would affect that is laughable.
The idea that the Python Foundation cares about user needs would affect 
that.

The idea that the Python Foundation manages to serve (out of one 
source-code-base) many platforms/compilers with binaries, due to an 
automated, community-supported build system.

This would affect that.
.
--
http://lazaridis.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-14 Thread Fredrik Lundh

Ilias Lazaridis wrote

 The idea that the Python Foundation cares about user needs would affect that.

please let the users speak for themselves.

/F 



-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-14 Thread jfj

Michael Hoffman wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

b) Why does the Python Foundation not ensure, that the python 
source-code is directly compilable with MinGW?

Why should they? It already runs on Windows with a freely available
compiler.
The point is that the freely available compiler wouldn't be free if
it wasn't for gcc.  Just for that I _believe_ python, being open source,
should support mingw as the default.  But I *don't care* and I don't 
mind, really ;)

jfj
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-14 Thread Robert Kern

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
Robert Kern wrote:
[snip]
The answer to most of your questions is, Because no one has yet 
volunteered their time and effort to get the job done.

this answer do not fit in most questions.

please review them again.
Against my better judgement, I have.
It certainly fits a, b, and c. It also fits d if you place an implicit 
Yes,  in front of the answer. 4/6. I stick with my assessment.

If this is important to you, you need to step up yourself and get it 
done and not expect other people to volunteer their unpaid time to 
satisfy your whims.

The open source Python community is driven by volunteerism, not a 
sense of entitlement. If this does not appeal to you, then perhaps the 
Python community is not the right one for you.

I ask some questions and suggest some things.
Voluntarlily and without beeing paid.
Questions and suggestions are don't count for much in this community. 
Code and well-written patches do.

Stop wasting time on c.l.py and get to work! If you can't do that, then 
this is not the community you are looking for.

There are many commercial systems around python.
And yet there is not one company that has someone devoted full-time to 
developing Python. Not even Guido. Most of core-Python development 
happens in people's spare, unpaid time.

Volunteerism is the core of this community. Trust me.
So please stop this volunteerism-stuff.
No. You are asking others to volunteer their time, or perhaps, 
alternately, the PSF and other businesses to volunteer their money to 
fund people's time to satisfy *your* wants. I am asking you to volunteer 
*your* time to satisfy *your* wants, or alternately, stop writing 
questionnaires and bothering us.

Note that this reaction is pretty specific to you and not to other 
newcomers. Most newcomers do not carry around a sense of entitlement 
that could flatten a small village. Thus, they are treated with respect 
and helpfulness. We would appreciate it if you would emulate these 
people. On a purely pragmatic note, you have to admit that they are 
getting much better help than you are.

If you like to help me and other newcomers, please give me simple some 
answers on the initial questions.
I did provide some answers. Please review them again.
--
Robert Kern
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
 Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
  -- Richard Harter
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

2005-02-14 Thread Brian Beck

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
this answer do not fit in most questions.

please review them again.
Actually, it does. Please review them again.
My questions:

a) Why does the Python Foundation not provide additionally a binary version, compiled with MinGW or another open-source compiler?
Because no one has yet volunteered their time and effort to get the job
done.

b) Why does the Python Foundation not ensure, that the python source-code is directly compilable with MinGW?
Because no one has yet volunteered their time and effort to get the job
done.

c) Why are the following efforts not _directly_ included in the python source code base?
Because no one has yet volunteered their time and effort to get the job
done.

d) Is it really neccessary that I dive into such adventures, to be able to do the most natural thing like: developing python extensions with MinGW?
Yes, because no one has yet volunteered their time and effort to get the
job done.

f) Are there any official (Python Foundation) statements / rationales available, which explain why the MinGW compiler is unsupported, although parts of the community obviously like to use it?
The most likely response you will get is: Because no one has yet
volunteered their time and effort to get the job done.

I ask some questions and suggest some things.
Voluntarlily and without beeing paid.
What a martyr you are.
There are many commercial systems around python.
So please stop this volunteerism-stuff.
If the support you're looking for is beneficial to your commercial
application a.k.a. business, then why aren't you making it happen?
Obviously the existing commercial development teams are doing fine
without it, otherwise it would exist. Even then, a commercial developer
providing their development work to enhance the standard Python
distribution IS volunteering.

--
Brian Beck
Adventurer of the First Order
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler