On Saturday 08 January 2005 00:05, Jack Jansen wrote:
This patch implements the proposed direct framework linking:
http://python.org/sf/1097739
Looks good, I'll incorporate it. And as I haven't heard of any
showstoppers for the -undefined dynamic_lookup (and Anthony seems to be
offline
On Jan 6, 2005, at 15:03, Bob Ippolito wrote:
On Jan 6, 2005, at 14:59, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
On 6-jan-05, at 14:04, Jack Jansen wrote:
On 6 Jan 2005, at 00:49, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
The new solution is basically to go back to the Unix way of
building an extension: link it against nothing and
On 7 Jan 2005, at 11:08, Bob Ippolito wrote:
10.3 or later. For older OSX releases (either because you build
Python on 10.2 or earlier, or because you've set
MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET to a value of 10.2 or less) we use the old
behaviour of linking with -framework Python.
Wouldn't it be better to
On 6 Jan 2005, at 00:49, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
The new solution is basically to go back to the Unix way of
building an extension: link it against nothing and sort things out
at runtime. Not my personal preference, but at least we know that
loading an extension into one Python won't bring in
On 6-jan-05, at 14:04, Jack Jansen wrote:
On 6 Jan 2005, at 00:49, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
The new solution is basically to go back to the Unix way of
building an extension: link it against nothing and sort things out
at runtime. Not my personal preference, but at least we know that
loading an
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to link with the actual dylib inside the framework
on 10.2? Otherwise you can no longer build 2.3 extensions after you've
installed 2.4.
That's what I thought, too.
Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mailing
On Jan 6, 2005, at 14:59, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
On 6-jan-05, at 14:04, Jack Jansen wrote:
On 6 Jan 2005, at 00:49, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
The new solution is basically to go back to the Unix way of
building an extension: link it against nothing and sort things out
at runtime. Not my personal
On 5-jan-05, at 9:33, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Bob Ippolito wrote:
It doesn't for reasons I care not to explain in depth, again. Search
the pythonmac-sig archives for longer explanations. The gist is
that you specifically do not want to link directly to the framework
at all when building
Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bob Ippolito wrote:
It doesn't for reasons I care not to explain in depth, again.
Search the pythonmac-sig archives for longer explanations. The
gist is that you specifically do not want to link directly to the
framework at all when building
On Jan 5, 2005, at 3:33 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Bob Ippolito wrote:
It doesn't for reasons I care not to explain in depth, again. Search
the pythonmac-sig archives for longer explanations. The gist is
that you specifically do not want to link directly to the framework
at all when
On Jan 5, 2005, at 18:46, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Bob Ippolito wrote:
I just dug up some information I had written on this particular topic
but never published, if you're interested:
http://bob.pythonmac.org/archives/2005/01/05/versioned-frameworks-
considered-harmful/
Interesting. I don't get
11 matches
Mail list logo
