On 24 Apr, 2010, at 18:15, Michael Foord wrote:
On 18/04/2010 15:13, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
On 14 Apr, 2010, at 23:37, Michael Foord wrote:
On 14/04/2010 23:32, Greg Ewing wrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
Building Python requires, I believe, the XCode development tools to be
On 18/04/2010 15:13, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
On 14 Apr, 2010, at 23:37, Michael Foord wrote:
On 14/04/2010 23:32, Greg Ewing wrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
Building Python requires, I believe, the XCode development tools to be
installed. Even then, building a full version of
Michael Foord fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk writes:
10.6.3 and yes I have Tcl and Tk in /Library/Frameworks. How do I
determine which versions they are?
You can use info patchlevel in tclsh - assuming you're running a
tclsh linked to your /Library version (a normal Tcl install puts this
in
On 24/04/2010 21:34, David Bolen wrote:
Michael Foordfuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk writes:
10.6.3 and yes I have Tcl and Tk in /Library/Frameworks. How do I
determine which versions they are?
You can use info patchlevel in tclsh - assuming you're running a
tclsh linked to your /Library
Michael Foord fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk writes:
Hmmm... looks like a 32 / 64 bit issue, which I believe may be the
expected result when trying to build on Snow Leopard (?).
I think so - I haven't tried a 64-bit build myself, but there's a
comment in setup.py indicating that none of the Tcl/Tk
On 24/04/2010 21:50, David Bolen wrote:
Michael Foordfuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk writes:
Hmmm... looks like a 32 / 64 bit issue, which I believe may be the
expected result when trying to build on Snow Leopard (?).
I think so - I haven't tried a 64-bit build myself, but there's a
On 24/04/2010 22:16, Michael Foord wrote:
On 24/04/2010 21:50, David Bolen wrote:
Michael Foordfuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk writes:
Hmmm... looks like a 32 / 64 bit issue, which I believe may be the
expected result when trying to build on Snow Leopard (?).
I think so - I haven't tried a 64-bit
On 14 Apr, 2010, at 23:37, Michael Foord wrote:
On 14/04/2010 23:32, Greg Ewing wrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
Building Python requires, I believe, the XCode development tools to be
installed. Even then, building a full version of Python - with *all* the C
extensions that are part of a
On 15 Apr, 2010, at 0:12, Zvezdan Petkovic wrote:
On Apr 14, 2010, at 4:40 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I think you just need to supply to configure
MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET=10.4
and have the appropriate SDK installed with Xcode.
Wouldn't that break 10.3 compatibility (seel below)?
On 15 Apr, 2010, at 6:36, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Greg Ewing wrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
Building Python requires, I believe, the XCode development tools to be
installed. Even then, building a full version of Python - with *all*
the C extensions that are part of a Python release - is not a
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
On 15 Apr, 2010, at 6:36, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Greg Ewing wrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
Building Python requires, I believe, the XCode development tools to be
installed. Even then, building a full version of Python - with *all*
the C extensions that are part of a
On 18 Apr, 2010, at 17:17, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
On 15 Apr, 2010, at 6:36, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Greg Ewing wrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
Building Python requires, I believe, the XCode development tools to be
installed. Even then, building a full version of Python
Ronald Oussoren ronaldousso...@mac.com writes:
On 18 Apr, 2010, at 17:17, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
That *is* trivial: use Mac/BuildScript/build-installer.py on OSX 10.5.
Hmm. When I tried it (on some 2.5 release), it took me two days until it
produced something.
In article 4bc697d2.4020...@v.loewis.de,
Martin v. Lowis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Greg Ewing wrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
Building Python requires, I believe, the XCode development tools to be
installed. Even then, building a full version of Python - with *all*
the C extensions that are
In article 4bc63599.5020...@voidspace.org.uk,
Michael Foord fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
A build on my machine produces output similar to:
Python build finished, but the necessary bits to build these modules
were not found:
_bsddb
third-party (Sleepycat) library needed (see the
In article 4bc61278.7020...@v.loewis.de,
Martin v. Lowis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Ned Deily wrote:
That *is* something that the PSF could help with. I
would be happy to help with that myself, although my time to do so will
be very limited for the next few weeks.
The PSF still has a
Whilst making Python easier to build on the Mac is certainly a worthy
goal, the point of my post was to demonstrate (in reply to an email by
Greg Ewing) *why* building a *full* Python from source was non-trivial.
I personally only build Python from source to test changes to
core-Python and am
Ned Any idea what type of machine it is and where it is currently
Ned located?
I seem to recall it is/was a G4 XServe. My guess as to location would be at
xs4all.nl.
Skip
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
What's non-trivial about it?
Building a DMG file, in a way that the output will actually work on most
other systems.
As Ronald pointed out, the installer build script does all of the dirty
work of building the install disk image (the .dmg file), including
downloading and building
Ned Deily wrote:
In article 4bc61278.7020...@v.loewis.de,
Martin v. Lowis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Ned Deily wrote:
That *is* something that the PSF could help with. I
would be happy to help with that myself, although my time to do so will
be very limited for the next few weeks.
The
In article 19399.11323.946604.992...@montanaro.dyndns.org,
s...@pobox.com wrote:
Ned Any idea what type of machine it is and where it is currently
Ned located?
I seem to recall it is/was a G4 XServe. My guess as to location would be at
xs4all.nl.
If it were working that could be
If it were working that could be of use. It would not be able to run OS
X 10.6 but having a 10.5 system PPC system as a buildbot would certainly
be useful; it should be fine for the default installer configuration
builds. (Alas, I don't expect to be anywhere in the vicinity in the
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 04:41, Ned Deily n...@acm.org wrote:
In article 4bc697d2.4020...@v.loewis.de,
Martin v. Lowis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Greg Ewing wrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
Building Python requires, I believe, the XCode development tools to be
installed. Even then,
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Michael Foord fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
Building the Mac installer requires volunteer time which I'm not sure
that more hardware will fix - compiling a full build of Python for Mac
OS X (with all the Python modules like Tkinter etc) requires expertise
which only
Bill Janssen wrote:
Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
[..]
It would take even more expertise to capture the remaining pieces in the
script, too, and no living person has that much expertise to write the
script (perhaps there are one or two people, and they don't have the time).
Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de writes:
The major difference in the do it yourself attitude is that Mac user
get a compiler for free, as part of the operating system release,
whereas for Windows, they have to pay for it (leaving alone VS Express
for the moment).
JOOI why ignore the
In article 4bc54f4f.4090...@v.loewis.de,
Martin v. Lowis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Wasn't that problem fixed weeks ago? The installer image has been
available there since several days after the release. And the link
seems fine now.
The inherent problem remains. There is no binary
On 14/04/2010 07:11, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Why is it unavoidable that the Mac build will languish behind others?
Because of lack of volunteers, and expertise (i.e. the experts lack time).
That doesn't explain why we leave a broken link in place when we do
major releases - for
On 14/04/2010 06:13, Ned Deily wrote:
In articlehq3e52$8o...@dough.gmane.org,
Steve Holdenst...@holdenweb.com wrote:
Why is it unavoidable that the Mac build will languish behind others?
Are we supporting MacOs or aren't we? If we are, why isn't the creation
of the build a part of the
On 14/04/2010 07:17, Steve Holden wrote:
[snip...]
In a wider sense of to support, MacOS is certainly supported by
Python. There is everything in the source code that you need to make
Python run on a Mac. Just download the sources and compile them yourself.
And yet we don't regard the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Steve Holden wrote:
Why is it unavoidable that the Mac build will languish behind others?
Are we supporting MacOs or aren't we? If we are, why isn't the creation
of the build a part of the release
On 14 April 2010 07:37, Paul Rudin p...@rudin.co.uk wrote:
Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de writes:
The major difference in the do it yourself attitude is that Mac user
get a compiler for free, as part of the operating system release,
whereas for Windows, they have to pay for it (leaving
On Apr 14, 2010, at 10:56 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
The problem is the process that creates a new release with a 404 link to
the Mac installer with no explanation. The 2.6.5 release (as always)
caused several requests to webmaster from Mac users unable to download
Python - which is a further
On 14/04/2010 13:46, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Apr 14, 2010, at 10:56 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
The problem is the process that creates a new release with a 404 link to
the Mac installer with no explanation. The 2.6.5 release (as always)
caused several requests to webmaster from Mac users
On Apr 14, 2010, at 02:45 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
Can we amend that to having some placeholder text saying that the Mac
installer is not yet available and a link to the previous available
version please. That can then be replaced with the normal link once the
Mac installer is uploaded.
You
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 06:33:03AM -0400, Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin v. L?wis wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Steve Holden wrote:
Why is it unavoidable that the Mac build will languish behind others?
Are we supporting MacOs or aren't we? If we
On 14/04/2010 13:58, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Apr 14, 2010, at 02:45 PM, Michael Foord wrote:
Can we amend that to having some placeholder text saying that the Mac
installer is not yet available and a link to the previous available
version please. That can then be replaced with the normal
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 07:36:25AM +0200, Martin v. L?wis wrote:
In a wider sense of to support, MacOS is certainly supported by
Python. There is everything in the source code that you need to make
Python run on a Mac. Just download the sources and compile them yourself.
And yet we don't
On Apr 14, 2010, at 06:39 AM, C. Titus Brown wrote:
Separately, I'd be happy to put forward a proposal to the PSF to fund RMs and
their lieutenants with a Mac or a PC, whichever they needed to keep things
moving. It's the least we can do, IMO, and hardware is just not that
expensive compared to
Michael Foord wrote:
Yes, I mean on the release page. The issue is that the download links on
the sidebar / front page go straight to the latest release page. If
there isn't yet a Mac installer available, and no alternative link to
get the previous version, it leaves Mac users with no obvious
Ned Deily n...@acm.org wrote:
In article 4bc54f4f.4090...@v.loewis.de,
Martin v. Lowis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Wasn't that problem fixed weeks ago? The installer image has been
available there since several days after the release. And the link
seems fine now.
The inherent
Michael Foord fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
Building the Mac installer requires volunteer time which I'm not sure
that more hardware will fix - compiling a full build of Python for Mac
OS X (with all the Python modules like Tkinter etc) requires expertise
which only a few people have.
On 14/04/2010 17:36, Bill Janssen wrote:
Michael Foordfuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
Building the Mac installer requires volunteer time which I'm not sure
that more hardware will fix - compiling a full build of Python for Mac
OS X (with all the Python modules like Tkinter etc) requires
Steve Why is it unavoidable that the Mac build will languish behind
Steve others? Are we supporting MacOs or aren't we? If we are, why
Steve isn't the creation of the build a part of the release process?
Steve Clearly it's not a priority given that nobody has seen fit to (or
Steve I do think it makes us look bad to have one supported platform
Steve lag the others, but it wasn't obvious to me whether hardware
Steve alone was the reason. If it is, the fix should be relatively
Steve simple.
I can't believe it's a hardware issue. Probably half the
On 14/04/2010 17:41, Michael Foord wrote:
[snip...]
A Mac OS X machine (and location to keep it) for the buildbots is a
*big* need however.
At least two. You want Leopard and Snow Leopard, too.
Well - an XServe that we can run virtualisation on would be the
*ideal* solution. I think the X
On Apr 14, 2010, at 10:51 AM, s...@pobox.com wrote:
Steve Why is it unavoidable that the Mac build will languish behind
Steve others? Are we supporting MacOs or aren't we? If we are, why
Steve isn't the creation of the build a part of the release process?
Steve Clearly it's not
Michael Mac users definitely *do* expect installers. Building Python
Michael requires, I believe, the XCode development tools to be
Michael installed.
XCode is free, and I suspect many people have it (I do).
Michael Even then, building a full version of Python - with *all* the C
On 14/04/2010 18:01, s...@pobox.com wrote:
Michael Mac users definitely *do* expect installers. Building Python
Michael requires, I believe, the XCode development tools to be
Michael installed.
XCode is free, and I suspect many people have it (I do).
Sure - but probably
On 14 April 2010 17:04, Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org wrote:
From the RM perspective, what I would really like to see is updates to
the release.py script to check dependencies and automate as much as possible,
as well as updates to PEP 101 for any process steps that can't be automated.
This
Michael Foord fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
Isn't that just a matter of having the recipe written down somewhere?
Yes, that would be nice. :-) Preferably a recipe that doesn't involve
Macports or Fink which some of us are allergic to.
Yes, ditto the MacPorts/Fink allergy.
All we
What happened to the big-ass computer farm for Python which was
being put together by someone at (I think) Michigan State?
That sounds a lot like Snakebite (www.snakebite.org), which is still...
uhhh, a work in progress ;-) We've run into an issue recently that's
thwarted progress, but that'll
Bill Janssen wrote:
Michael Foord fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
Isn't that just a matter of having the recipe written down somewhere?
Yes, that would be nice. :-) Preferably a recipe that doesn't involve
Macports or Fink which some of us are allergic to.
Yes, ditto the
On 14/04/2010 18:49, Steve Holden wrote:
Bill Janssen wrote:
Michael Foordfuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
Isn't that just a matter of having the recipe written down somewhere?
Yes, that would be nice. :-) Preferably a recipe that doesn't involve
Macports or Fink which
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 09:37:34AM -0700, Bill Janssen wrote:
Michael Foord fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
Isn't that just a matter of having the recipe written down somewhere?
Yes, that would be nice. :-) Preferably a recipe that doesn't involve
Macports or Fink which some
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 06:52:46PM +0200, Michael Foord wrote:
On 14/04/2010 18:49, Steve Holden wrote:
Bill Janssen wrote:
Michael Foordfuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
Isn't that just a matter of having the recipe written down somewhere?
Yes, that would be nice.
What happened to the big-ass computer farm for Python which was
being put together by someone at (I think) Michigan State?
That sounds a lot like Snakebite (www.snakebite.org), which is
still... uhhh, a work in progress ;-)
Actually, for those that are interested, here's a copy of the
Michael Foord fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
On 14/04/2010 18:49, Steve Holden wrote:
Bill Janssen wrote:
Michael Foordfuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
Isn't that just a matter of having the recipe written down somewhere?
Yes, that would be nice. :-)
Michael Foord wrote:
On 14/04/2010 06:13, Ned Deily wrote:
In articlehq3e52$8o...@dough.gmane.org,
Steve Holdenst...@holdenweb.com wrote:
Why is it unavoidable that the Mac build will languish behind others?
Are we supporting MacOs or aren't we? If we are, why isn't the creation
of
On 14/04/2010 19:25, Steve Holden wrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
On 14/04/2010 06:13, Ned Deily wrote:
In articlehq3e52$8o...@dough.gmane.org,
Steve Holdenst...@holdenweb.com wrote:
Why is it unavoidable that the Mac build will languish behind others?
Are we supporting
Sure - but probably not your average Python-on-Mac user. Or at least a
good proportion of them, particularly newbies who we are keen to keep
the experience of obtaining Python simple. First download and then
install 1gigabyte of developer tools (seriously) requiring registration,
then compile
C. Titus Brown wrote:
If Georg, Benjamin,
Martin, or Ronald are interested, please just tell me (or Steve, or the PSF
board, or ...) what you want and I'll work on getting it funded.
For me, my company provides all the infrastructure I need (tools,
bandwidth, hardware, etc). I agreed, in
Paul Rudin wrote:
Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de writes:
The major difference in the do it yourself attitude is that Mac user
get a compiler for free, as part of the operating system release,
whereas for Windows, they have to pay for it (leaving alone VS Express
for the moment).
JOOI
Ned Deily wrote:
That *is* something that the PSF could help with. I
would be happy to help with that myself, although my time to do so will
be very limited for the next few weeks.
The PSF still has a machine that was donated by Apple that once used to
be a build slave. Unfortunately, that
I'd be happy to help where I can, too. All my automated testing of
UpLib (Windows, Ubuntu, Fedora, OS X) is done on Apple servers running
OS X and VirtualBox and Hudson, so I've got some experience there.
Would you be interested in operating a build slave?
Regards,
Martin
Michael Foord fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
Building the Mac installer requires volunteer time which I'm not sure
that more hardware will fix - compiling a full build of Python for Mac
OS X (with all the Python modules like Tkinter etc) requires expertise
which only a few people have.
How about as a first step the release build process include a check for
broken links before committing the web content for a new release?
You'd have to convince the release manager to add a step to the release
process.
Given that the release process has already too many steps, he is
probably
From what I recall, the PC build process is pretty much routine (I
can't recall how much it's scripted, and how much it's manual, but
well-documented and simple, steps). I don't know what extra is needed
to build the final installer, but I'd be willing to have a go at
testing the existing
On 14/04/2010 20:21, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Mac users definitely *do* expect installers. Building Python requires, I
believe, the XCode development tools to be installed. Even then,
building a full version of Python - with *all* the C extensions that are
part of a Python release - is not a
Right - but we were discussing this in the context of barrier to entry,
particularly to new users. We don't impose this requirement for Windows
users though - we provide binary installers.
I *know* we're a volunteer organisation (etc), but it is good for us to
be aware of our process
On 14/04/2010 21:37, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
[snip...]
Unfortunately the Mac installer build script doesn't seem to run at all
on Mac OS X 10.6 (at least not on my machine), but hopefully the
situation is clarified so that one of us who does still have Mac OS X
10.5 will be able to build the
On Apr 14, 2010, at 3:37 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I'm not sure whether 10.5 would be sufficient - it may be that you need to go
back to 10.4 (*).
I think you just need to supply to configure
MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET=10.4
and have the appropriate SDK installed with Xcode.
I
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 14:03, Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Paul Rudin wrote:
Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de writes:
The major difference in the do it yourself attitude is that Mac user
get a compiler for free, as part of the operating system release,
whereas for
I think you just need to supply to configure
MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET=10.4
and have the appropriate SDK installed with Xcode.
Wouldn't that break 10.3 compatibility (seel below)?
Unfortunately, Apple manages to break compatibility and portability
with every release, which makes this
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 14:06:44 -0400, Eric Smith e...@trueblade.com wrote:
Steve Holden st...@holdenweb.com wrote:
I spent some considerable effort last year ensuring the developer
community was well-supplied with MS developer licenses that give access
to any necessary tools. Was I wasting my
Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
I'd be happy to help where I can, too. All my automated testing of
UpLib (Windows, Ubuntu, Fedora, OS X) is done on Apple servers running
OS X and VirtualBox and Hudson, so I've got some experience there.
Would you be interested in operating a
Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
Michael Foord fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk wrote:
Building the Mac installer requires volunteer time which I'm not sure
that more hardware will fix - compiling a full build of Python for Mac
OS X (with all the Python modules like Tkinter etc)
Michael Foord wrote:
Building Python requires, I
believe, the XCode development tools to be installed. Even then,
building a full version of Python - with *all* the C extensions that are
part of a Python release - is not a trivial task.
What's non-trivial about it? I usually find that the
On 14/04/2010 23:32, Greg Ewing wrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
Building Python requires, I believe, the XCode development tools to
be installed. Even then, building a full version of Python - with
*all* the C extensions that are part of a Python release - is not a
trivial task.
What's
Paul Moore p.f.mo...@gmail.com writes:
On 14 April 2010 07:37, Paul Rudin p...@rudin.co.uk wrote:
Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de writes:
The major difference in the do it yourself attitude is that Mac user
get a compiler for free, as part of the operating system release,
whereas for
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
The same is true for any other operating system, though: you need to
install the compiler tool chain (sometimes, you need to buy it first),
and compiling Python with all extensions is not a trivial task.
Even on Linux, it takes a bit of fiddling. I finally remembered to
On 14 April 2010 18:36, Steve Holden st...@holdenweb.com wrote:
I spent some considerable effort last year ensuring the developer
community was well-supplied with MS developer licenses that give access
to any necessary tools. Was I wasting my time?
Definitely not - my offer is at least in part
On Apr 14, 2010, at 4:40 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
I think you just need to supply to configure
MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET=10.4
and have the appropriate SDK installed with Xcode.
Wouldn't that break 10.3 compatibility (seel below)?
I was replying to your point about 10.4 build.
Greg Ewing wrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
Building Python requires, I believe, the XCode development tools to be
installed. Even then, building a full version of Python - with *all*
the C extensions that are part of a Python release - is not a trivial
task.
What's non-trivial about it?
Why is it unavoidable that the Mac build will languish behind others?
Are we supporting MacOs or aren't we? If we are, why isn't the creation
of the build a part of the release process?
Clearly it's not a priority given that nobody has seen fit to (or had
time to) reply to this mail in three
Tres Seaver wrote:
Steve Holden wrote:
Why is it unavoidable that the Mac build will languish behind others?
Are we supporting MacOs or aren't we? If we are, why isn't the creation
of the build a part of the release process?
Clearly it's not a priority given that nobody has seen fit to (or
In article hq3e52$8o...@dough.gmane.org,
Steve Holden st...@holdenweb.com wrote:
Why is it unavoidable that the Mac build will languish behind others?
Are we supporting MacOs or aren't we? If we are, why isn't the creation
of the build a part of the release process?
Clearly it's not a
Why is it unavoidable that the Mac build will languish behind others?
Because of lack of volunteers, and expertise (i.e. the experts lack time).
Are we supporting MacOs or aren't we?
We aren't. Strictly speaking, we (python-dev) support nothing (in
the sense that we can promise a support
Tres Seaver wrote:
Steve Holden wrote:
Why is it unavoidable that the Mac build will languish behind others?
Are we supporting MacOs or aren't we? If we are, why isn't the creation
of the build a part of the release process?
Clearly it's not a priority given that nobody has seen fit to (or
Wasn't that problem fixed weeks ago? The installer image has been
available there since several days after the release. And the link
seems fine now.
The inherent problem remains. There is no binary for 2.7b1, for example.
The last binaries produced in the 2.7 testing process were for
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Why is it unavoidable that the Mac build will languish behind others?
Because of lack of volunteers, and expertise (i.e. the experts lack time).
Are we supporting MacOs or aren't we?
We aren't. Strictly speaking, we (python-dev) support nothing (in
the sense that
In a wider sense of to support, MacOS is certainly supported by
Python. There is everything in the source code that you need to make
Python run on a Mac. Just download the sources and compile them yourself.
And yet we don't regard the Windows release as complete until you have
built the
Hey all,
This seems to happen whenever we do a new release (we've had a couple of
emails to webmas...@python.org about it since 2.6.5 was released). The
main download page for Python has a broken link for the Mac installer
(because it hasn't been built yet I assume):
93 matches
Mail list logo
