Anthony Baxter wrote:
>> For reference, here's my effbot.org release procedure:
>>
>> 1) upload the distribution files one by one, as soon as they're
>> available. all links and stuff will appear automatically
>>
>> 2) update the associated description text through the web, when
>> necessary, as
On Friday 13 October 2006 16:59, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> yeah, but *you* are doing it. if the server did that, Martin and
> other trusted contributors could upload the files as soon as they're
> available, instead of first transferring them to you, and then waiting
> for you to find yet another pre
I've uploaded a new patch to Sourceforge in response to feedback:
* I purged all // comments and fixed all > 80 characters added by my
patch, as per Neil Norwitz.
* I added a definition of max() for those who don't already have one,
as per [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It now compiles cleanly on Linux
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>
>> Of course, if everybody would always recompile all extension modules
>> for a new Python feature release, those flags weren't necessary.
>
> a dynamic registration approach would be even better, with a single entry
> point
> used to register all
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> > would collapse to
> >
> > static PyTypeObject NoddyType;
>
> Wouldn't that have to be a pointer to allow the Python runtime complete
> control of the structure size without recompiling the extension?:
>
> static PyTypeObject *NoddyType;
yeah, that's a silly typo.
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>> From: Kristján V. Jónsson
>> I think we should start considering to make PCBuild8 a "supported" build.
>
> +1 and not just for the free speed-up. VC8 is what more and more Windows
> developers will have on there machines. Without a supported build, it
> becomes
> m
Antoine wrote:
>> The standard library is not about easeness of installation. It is
>> about having
>> a consistent fixed codebase to work with. I don't want to go
>> Perl/CPAN, where you have 3-4 alternatives to do thing A which will
>> never interoperate
>> with whatever you chose among the 3-4
I apologize, this had to go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
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
On 10/13/06, Anthony Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 13 October 2006 16:59, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> > yeah, but *you* are doing it. if the server did that, Martin and
> > other trusted contributors could upload the files as soon as they're
> > available, instead of first transferring
Anthony:
>> Sure - I get that. There's a couple of reasons for me doing it. First is gpg
>> signing the release files, which has to happen on my local machine. There's
>> also the variation in who actually builds the releases; at least one of the
>> Mac builds was done by Bob I. But there could be
On Friday 13 October 2006 20:35, Bob Ippolito wrote:
> With most consumer connections it's a lot faster to download than to
> upload. Perhaps it would save you a few minutes if the contributors
> uploaded directly to the destination (or to some other fast server)
> and you could download and sign i
On 10/13/06, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> any reason you cannot just use the "subprocess" module instead, like
> everyone else?
Oh! Wow! I just simply didn't know of its existance (I'm pretty much
new to python), and both distutils and SCons (I was looking inside
them because they ar
Alexey Borzenkov wrote:
>> any reason you cannot just use the "subprocess" module instead, like
>> everyone else?
>
> Oh! Wow! I just simply didn't know of its existance (I'm pretty much
> new to python), and both distutils and SCons (I was looking inside
> them because they are major build system
Martin v. Löwis schrieb:
> Anthony Baxter schrieb:
>> Mostly it is easy for me, with the one huge caveat. As far as I know, the
>> Mac
>> build is a single command to run for Ronald, and the Doc build similarly for
>> Fred. I don't know what Martin has to do for the Windows build.
>
> Actually,
On Friday, October 13, 2006, at 01:10PM, Anthony Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Friday 13 October 2006 20:35, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>> With most consumer connections it's a lot faster to download than to
>> upload. Perhaps it would save you a few minutes if the contributors
>> uploaded dir
On Friday, October 13, 2006, at 12:36PM, Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>To be fair, (thanks to Ronald) the Mac build is entirely automated by
>a script with the caveat that you should be a little careful about
>what your environment looks like (e.g. don't install fink or macports,
>o
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Anthony Baxter wrote:
>
>
>>The other thing to watch out for is that I (or whoever) can still do local
>>work on a bunch of different files
>
>
> the point of my previous post is that you *shouldn't* have to edit a
> bunch of different files to make a new release.
>
In
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Brett Cannon wrote:
>
>
>>I know AMK was experimenting with rest2web as a possible way to do the
>>web site. There has also been talk about trying out another system.
>>But I also know some people would rather put the effort into improving
>>Pyramid.
>
>
> You forgot
"Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not sure whether you are requesting these for yourself or for
> somebody else. If for somebody else, that somebody else should seriously
> consider building Python himself, and publishing the result.
I'm requesting it for the many Boost.Python (
Alexey Borzenkov wrote:
> Oh! Wow! I just simply didn't know of its existance (I'm pretty much
> new to python), and both distutils and SCons (I was looking inside
> them because they are major build systems and surely had to execute
> compilers somehow), and upon seeing that each of them invented
I have patched Lib/modulefinder.py to work with absolute and relative imports.
It also is faster now, and has basic unittests in Lib/test/test_modulefinder.py.
The work was done in a theller_modulefinder SVN branch.
If nobody objects, I will merge this into trunk, and possibly also into
release25
Larry Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> The machine is dual-core, and was quiescent at the time. XP's scheduler
> is hopefully good enough to just leave the process running on one core.
It's not. Go into the task manager (accessable via Ctrl+Alt+Del by
default) and change the proces
I just got around to reading the messages.When I first saw this, I thought this is so that the processes that need to share and work on shared objects. That is where the locks are required. However, all shread objects are managed by the object manager and thus all such operations are in effect sequ
David Abrahams schrieb:
>> I'm not sure whether you are requesting these for yourself or for
>> somebody else. If for somebody else, that somebody else should seriously
>> consider building Python himself, and publishing the result.
>
> I'm requesting it for the many Boost.Python (heck, all Python
Steve Holden schrieb:
>>> The other thing to watch out for is that I (or whoever) can still do local
>>> work on a bunch of different files
>>
>> the point of my previous post is that you *shouldn't* have to edit a
>> bunch of different files to make a new release.
>>
> Indeed. I seem to remember
Thomas Heller schrieb:
> Yes. But I've switched machines since I last build an installer, and I do not
> have all of the needed software installed any longer, for example the Wise
> Installer.
Ok. So we are technically incapable of producing the Windows binaries of
another 2.3.x release, then?
"Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thomas Heller schrieb:
> > Yes. But I've switched machines since I last build an installer, and I do
> > not
> > have all of the needed software installed any longer, for example the Wise
> > Installer.
>
> Ok. So we are technically incapable o
[Thomas Heller]
>> Yes. But I've switched machines since I last build an installer,
and I do not
>> have all of the needed software installed any longer, for example the Wise
>> Installer.
[Martin v. Löwis]
> Ok. So we are technically incapable of producing the Windows binaries of
> another 2.3.
"Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Abrahams schrieb:
>>> I'm not sure whether you are requesting these for yourself or for
>>> somebody else. If for somebody else, that somebody else should seriously
>>> consider building Python himself, and publishing the result.
>>
>> I'm req
Tim Peters schrieb:
> FYI, I still have the Wise Installer. But since my understanding is
> that the "Unicode buffer overrun" thingie is a non-issue on Windows,
> I've got no interest in wrestling with a 2.3.6 for Windows.
In 2.3.6, there wouldn't just be that change, but also a few other
changes
Josiah Carlson schrieb:
> I've got a build setup for 2.3.x, but I lack the Wise Installer. It may
> be possible to use the 2.4 or 2.5 .msi creation tools, if that was
> sufficient.
I don't think that would be appropriate. There are differences in usage
which might be significant to some users, e.
31 matches
Mail list logo
