It would be *really* nice if it worked for Python itself for making an
RPM distribution of Python.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Roger Binns schrieb:
As far as I can tell, they failed at two hurdles. One is that there
is a new BitPim release every two weeks and they can't really keep up
with that. (eg it takes around two weeks for packages with a lot of
attention on Gentoo to become stable and often is a lot longer)
This
Roger Binns napisa(a):
The distutils approach is mainly useful for packages and libraries,
not for applications. And of course it still has the prerequisites
issues mentioned earlier.
This reminds me, that there is still no clear direction as to where
install Python applications on Linux if one
Terry Reedy writes:
To put it another way, needing a Python interpreter to run .py files is
no
different from, for instance, needing a movie player to run .mpg files,
and
all Windows users are or need to become familiar with that general
concept.
The problem for windows
Roger Binns wrote:
- I could make some sort of installer that did all the non-Python
interpretter
pieces and it would have to be compatible with anyone else doing the same
thing.
The first is a waste of my time and effort, and I do the second except I also
include the Python
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
[Robin Becker]
People have mentioned the older v6 build scripts/tools still work. Last time I
tried they seemed a bit out of date.
I routinely use the current CVS to build Py2.4 and Py2.5 with MSC6.
It is effortless and I've had no problems.
Raymond Hettinger
I
Peter Hansen wrote:
The last I recall reading in this forum was that the regular
distribution is compiled with a copy of the compiler
*provided by* Microsoft.
On re-reading, I see this might not be clear enough.
By 'provided by' I meant *donated by*, as in given
free (apparently) to the PSF or at
Peter Hansen wrote:
The last I recall reading in this forum was that the regular
distribution is compiled with a copy of the compiler
*provided by* Microsoft.
[...]
By 'provided by' I meant *donated by*, as in given
free (apparently) to the PSF or at least to one of
the core developers for
On Wednesday 13 April 2005 9:11 pm, Roger Binns wrote:
Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I guess I don't understand some people's determination to not have users
install fully useable Python on their Windows machines.
Ok, here is how you install BitPim
And, also, with dotNET-framework
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
For developers that need msvcr71.dll on the target system which don't
have a license to distribute it, the solution is simple: they just need
to advise their users to install python-2.4.1.msi. This comes with
msvcr71.dll included.
I understand this, and it's obviously a
Do Re Mi chel La Si Do wrote:
Hi !
This DLL come also with MS-JVM engine, who is free. Therefore...
This is very true (and the .NET suggestion as well). However, why should
I require an end-user to install MS-JVM or the .NET framework, purely
for a simple little launcher application ?
The main
A.B., Khalid wrote:
Kindly note that the Python source distribution does include project
files for building Python 2.4 with MSVC6. Add to that the fact that
with pyMinGW[1] one can build yet another Windows distribution not
dependent on mscvr71.dll and some of the logic about not upgrading to
Michael Kearns wrote:
.
I would guess from the responses so far that Python 2.4 just isn't used
within commercially shipping products, or is quietly used by an product
so as not to incur any legal wrath that might be found. Perhaps it isn't
quite ready for what I want to achieve. I don't
Michael Kearns wrote:
I would guess from the responses so far that Python 2.4 just isn't used
within commercially
shipping products
that kind of unfounded hyperbole only makes you look silly.
I don't know.
exactly. now calm down, and go read the replies to this thread again. or
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
What happens if I try to install Python2.4 on a system wich doesn't have
the dll?
It will just work. Python installs the DLL if it is missing, and leaves
it alone (just incrementing the refcount) if it is present on the target
system.
installs it where? the MS docs
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Michael Kearns wrote:
I would guess from the responses so far that Python 2.4 just isn't used within commercially
shipping products
that kind of unfounded hyperbole only makes you look silly.
As no-one had replied that they had found it fine to use in a commercial
sense, or
Michael Kearns wrote:
As for consulting a lawyer, this is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. My
usage of python in a
commercial sense is as a small utility - a helper, if you will. It has no
business value
whatsoever, compared to the product that it ships with, and certainly does
not
I'm sorry that this is going to come out sounding like a flame, but it
seems to me that there today only a few technical problems remaining
with Python when built with mingw32.
If one of the people who has expressed such deep concern about this
msvcr71.dll problem would simply install the Free
Michael Kearns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I understand this, and it's obviously a solution. Unfortunately it defeats
the whole point of me 'freezing' my code in the first place.
The main feature (for me) of the way I could use this, was to create a
simple Java
Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
Also, I think it a bit 'anti-social' to hide usage of Python. If all
Python Windows programs ran with a normal, communally installed Python,
then users would gradually get the idea that having Python installed is
much like having Shockwave and
Terry Reedy wrote:
I guess I don't understand some people's determination to not have users
install fully useable Python on their Windows machines.
[snip]
To put it another way, needing a Python interpreter to run .py files is no
different from, for instance, needing a movie player to run .mpg
Dave Brueck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Terry Reedy wrote:
If there is something about the default install of Python on Windows
that makes it less desireable or less easy than other platforms,
then maybe that can be fixed. To make installation easier, maybe
someone could write a small .exe
Thomas Heller wrote:
Dave Brueck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Terry Reedy wrote:
If there is something about the default install of Python on Windows
that makes it less desireable or less easy than other platforms,
then maybe that can be fixed. To make installation easier, maybe
someone could write
Mentre io pensavo ad una intro simpatica Martin v. Löwis scriveva:
What happens if I try to install Python2.4 on a system wich doesn't have
the dll?
It will just work. Python installs the DLL if it is missing, and leaves
it alone (just incrementing the refcount) if it is present on the target
Mentre io pensavo ad una intro simpatica Fredrik Lundh scriveva:
It will just work. Python installs the DLL if it is missing, and leaves
it alone (just incrementing the refcount) if it is present on the target
system.
installs it where? the MS docs seem to indicate that they want you to
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 08:42:54 -0500, Jeff Epler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--7iMSBzlTiPOCCT2k
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
I'm sorry that this is going to come out sounding like a flame, but it
seems to me that there today only a few technical problems
Terry Reedy wrote:
I guess I don't understand some people's determination to not have
users
install fully useable Python on their Windows machines. Doing so
seems no
different to me than having to install (or upgrade) Shockwave, or
Apple's
Quicksomething for Windows (not used so much
Nemesis wrote:
OK, so the python installer _does_ ship this dll. So also the win
installer has the redistribution problem, or does they pay for
redistributing msvcr71.dll?
The last I recall reading in this forum was that the regular
distribution is compiled with a copy of the compiler
*provided
[Nemesis]
OK, so the python installer _does_ ship this dll. So also the
win installer has the redistribution problem, or does they
pay for redistributing msvcr71.dll?
If you have a legal copy of one of the commercial MS compilers that includes
msvcr71.dll, you get the right to redistribute
installs it where? the MS docs seem to indicate that they
want you to install it in the program directory, rather than
in a shared location:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;326922
From
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2005-February/265334.html:
Jimmy Retzlaff wrote:
Terry Reedy wrote:
I guess I don't understand some people's determination to not have users
install fully useable Python on their Windows machines. Doing so seems no
different to me than having to install (or upgrade) Shockwave, or Apple's
Quicksomething for Windows (not
[Robin Becker]
People have mentioned the older v6 build scripts/tools still work. Last time I
tried they seemed a bit out of date.
I routinely use the current CVS to build Py2.4 and Py2.5 with MSC6.
It is effortless and I've had no problems.
Raymond Hettinger
--
Michael Kearns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've been using python to write a simple 'launcher' for one of our
Java applications for quite a while now. I recently updated it to use
python 2.4, and all seemed well.
Today, one of my colleagues noted that on her machine the launcher
would
Thomas Heller wrote:
For commercial development, it should not be a problem to buy a license
for MSVC 7.1, which gives you the right to distribute msvcrt71.dll.
And maybe that's the reason that few people care about this issue?
Hi Thomas,
There are a few problems with this as I see it. In theory,
[Michael Kearns]
...
Also, I don't believe that just 'owning' MSVC 7.1 is enough. From
cursory glances at the various redist files, I would also have to ship
the EULA, and as an end-user (of python) I can't just redistribute the
files - perhaps I could write a place holder application in
Mentre io pensavo ad una intro simpatica Michael Kearns scriveva:
I've been using python to write a simple 'launcher' for one of our Java
applications for quite a while now. I recently updated it to use python
2.4, and all seemed well.
Today, one of my colleagues noted that on her machine
Hi !
This DLL come also with MS-JVM engine, who is free. Therefore...
--
Michel Claveau
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Nemesis wrote:
I have the same problem. But I have a doubt, does Python installer ship
this dll?
It sure does.
What happens if I try to install Python2.4 on a system wich doesn't have
the dll?
It will just work. Python installs the DLL if it is missing, and leaves
it alone (just
[problems with dependency on msvr71.dll snipped]
One option is to create a Windows Python 2.4 installer that includes a
Python not built with MSVC7 - for example gcc or MSVC6 - which doesn't have
the dependency on mscvr71.dll. Both VC6 and gcc are feasible, although
there may be a reasonable
Tony Meyer wrote:
[problems with dependency on msvr71.dll snipped]
One option is to create a Windows Python 2.4 installer that includes
a
Python not built with MSVC7 - for example gcc or MSVC6 - which
doesn't have
the dependency on mscvr71.dll. Both VC6 and gcc are feasible,
although
there
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Michael Kearns wrote:
There are a few problems with this as I see it. In theory, the 'cost' of
MSVC 7.1 shouldn't be a problem for a big organisation. However, I
wouldn't expect to have to go and buy it purely because I'm developing
(perhaps) a shareware application using
42 matches
Mail list logo
