On 2016-10-06 11:04, Steve D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Oct 2016 01:36 am, Ned Deily wrote:
>> On 2016-10-02 00:25, Steve D'Aprano wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 01:58 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
Hmm, I've possibly missed something here, which may indicate a
problem. Why can't your existing
On Fri, 7 Oct 2016 01:36 am, Ned Deily wrote:
> On 2016-10-02 00:25, Steve D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 01:58 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> Hmm, I've possibly missed something here, which may indicate a
>>> problem. Why can't your existing machines build? Is it because they
>>> have too-o
On 2016-10-02 00:25, Steve D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 01:58 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> Hmm, I've possibly missed something here, which may indicate a
>> problem. Why can't your existing machines build? Is it because they
>> have too-old versions of tools, and if so, which?
> Yes, this.
Steve D'Aprano writes:
> The dependencies needed to build 4.8 aren't available for my system. And
> there's no supported upgrade path.
If you're system runs 4.4 it should be able to build 4.8 I'd hope. I
have Debian 7 which comes with 4.7, and I was able to download and build
6.1 with any signif
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 1:06 AM, Steve D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 04:45 pm, Paul Rubin wrote:
>
>> Steve D'Aprano writes:
>>> Yes, this. You need gcc 4.8 or better to build CPython 3.6, and the most
>>> recent any of my systems support is 4.4.
>>
>> Building gcc takes a while but it's re
On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 04:45 pm, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Steve D'Aprano writes:
>> Yes, this. You need gcc 4.8 or better to build CPython 3.6, and the most
>> recent any of my systems support is 4.4.
>
> Building gcc takes a while but it's reasonably simple. Just start it
> going and read a book for a
Steve D'Aprano writes:
> Yes, this. You need gcc 4.8 or better to build CPython 3.6, and the most
> recent any of my systems support is 4.4.
Building gcc takes a while but it's reasonably simple. Just start it
going and read a book for a while.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python
On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Steve D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 01:58 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> Hmm, I've possibly missed something here, which may indicate a
>> problem. Why can't your existing machines build? Is it because they
>> have too-old versions of tools, and if so, which?
On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 01:58 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Hmm, I've possibly missed something here, which may indicate a
> problem. Why can't your existing machines build? Is it because they
> have too-old versions of tools, and if so, which?
Yes, this. You need gcc 4.8 or better to build CPython 3.6,
On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 12:30 am, Zachary Ware wrote:
> On Oct 1, 2016 06:25, "Steve D'Aprano" wrote:
>>
>> Long story short: I have no working systems capable of compiling the
> latest
>> Python 3.6, and no time to upgrade my usual machines to something which
>> will work.
>
> Since you're working o
On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Steve D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 09:31 am, Paul Rubin wrote:
>
>> Steve D'Aprano writes:
>>> However I do have access to another machine (actually a VM) which can
>>> compile Python 3.6. It's not practical for me to use it as a my main
>>> development mac
On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 09:31 am, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Steve D'Aprano writes:
>> However I do have access to another machine (actually a VM) which can
>> compile Python 3.6. It's not practical for me to use it as a my main
>> development machine, but as a temporary measure, I thought I could
>> compile
Steve D'Aprano writes:
> However I do have access to another machine (actually a VM) which can
> compile Python 3.6. It's not practical for me to use it as a my main
> development machine, but as a temporary measure, I thought I could
> compile 3.6 on this VM, then copy the python binary to my usu
On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 11:03 PM, Steve D'Aprano
wrote:
>> Are both Linuxes of broadly similar vintage?
>
> That depends on what you mean by "broadly similar". As far as I am
> concerned, a five year difference is not very much, and is broadly
> similar -- it's not like I'm using Linux from 1991. B
On Oct 1, 2016 06:25, "Steve D'Aprano" wrote:
>
> Long story short: I have no working systems capable of compiling the
latest
> Python 3.6, and no time to upgrade my usual machines to something which
> will work.
Since you're working on a pure-Python module (statistics), I'd recommend
updating to
On 10/01/2016 05:21 AM, Steve D'Aprano wrote:
> Long story short: I have no working systems capable of compiling the
> latest Python 3.6, and no time to upgrade my usual machines to
> something which will work.
>
> However I do have access to another machine (actually a VM) which
> can compile Pyt
On 2016-10-01, Steve D'Aprano wrote:
> Does gcc support static linking?
Yes, but the real question is the CPython makefile includes recipes
for a statically-linked target.
> Even if I end up with a much bigger binary, at least I know it will
> have everything it needs to run and I won't have to
On 2016-10-01, Steve D'Aprano wrote:
> Long story short: I have no working systems capable of compiling the
> latest Python 3.6, and no time to upgrade my usual machines to
> something which will work.
>
> However I do have access to another machine (actually a VM) which can
> compile Python 3.6.
On Sat, 1 Oct 2016 10:01 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> [...] I thought I could
>> compile 3.6 on this VM, then copy the python binary to my usual desktop
>> machine.
>>
>> What sort of challenges am I likely to find? Both machines are Linux, but
>> different distros.
>
> First off, are they the sa
On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Steve D'Aprano
wrote:
> Long story short: I have no working systems capable of compiling the latest
> Python 3.6, and no time to upgrade my usual machines to something which
> will work.
>
> However I do have access to another machine (actually a VM) which can
> com
20 matches
Mail list logo
