On 5-feb-2006, at 19:59, Bob Ippolito wrote:
On Feb 5, 2006, at 6:48 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
On 5-feb-2006, at 7:46, Bob Ippolito wrote:
On Feb 3, 2006, at 12:10 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
I think the only things missing from my branch currently are:
1) 10.3.9 support
I believe this
On Feb 5, 2006, at 6:48 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
> On 5-feb-2006, at 7:46, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 3, 2006, at 12:10 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>>
>>> I think the only things missing from my branch currently are:
>>>
>>> 1) 10.3.9 support
>>
>> I believe this is taken care of now that
On 5-feb-2006, at 7:46, Bob Ippolito wrote:
On Feb 3, 2006, at 12:10 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
I think the only things missing from my branch currently are:
1) 10.3.9 support
I believe this is taken care of now that Ronald contributed the
weak linking patch.
If anyone wants support for
On 5-feb-2006, at 7:46, Bob Ippolito wrote:
On another note, I also moved the HAVE_BROKEN_POLL check to runtime
instead of compile time. Mac OS X 10.4.4's poll isn't broken, so
we should be able to use it. I'm not sure which versions of Mac OS
X have a broken poll, but the ones that hav
On Feb 3, 2006, at 12:10 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
> I think the only things missing from my branch currently are:
>
> 1) 10.3.9 support
I believe this is taken care of now that Ronald contributed the weak
linking patch.
> 2) Universal PythonLauncher
This is done.
> 3) Revamped Mac/OSX/Dist s
On Feb 4, 2006, at 2:57 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
> On 4-feb-2006, at 11:16, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 4, 2006, at 1:29 AM, Nicholas Riley wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 09:41:32AM +0100, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
An alternative to fat might be 'ppc,i386'. That is longer, but
On 4-feb-2006, at 11:16, Bob Ippolito wrote:
On Feb 4, 2006, at 1:29 AM, Nicholas Riley wrote:
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 09:41:32AM +0100, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
An alternative to fat might be 'ppc,i386'. That is longer, but is
clearer about which architectures are supported (just in case
s
On Feb 4, 2006, at 1:29 AM, Nicholas Riley wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 09:41:32AM +0100, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>> An alternative to fat might be 'ppc,i386'. That is longer, but is
>> clearer about which architectures are supported (just in case someone
>> decides to donate support for a thr
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 09:41:32AM +0100, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
> An alternative to fat might be 'ppc,i386'. That is longer, but is
> clearer about which architectures are supported (just in case someone
> decides to donate support for a threeway universal build). Patching
> setuptools to kn
On 3-feb-2006, at 21:10, Bob Ippolito wrote:
On Feb 3, 2006, at 11:41 AM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
On Feb 3, 2006, at 11:01 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
On 3-feb-2006, at 20:00, Bob Ippolito wrote:
On Feb 3, 2006, at 10:52 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
On 3-feb-2006, at 5:23, Bob Ippolito wr
On 3-feb-2006, at 20:51, Bob Ippolito wrote:
Since this is GCC, the #ifndef __LITTLE_ENDIAN__ branch is always
false... so I'm making this a compile-time not configure-time
value, but I left in the configure-time stuff for other platforms.
Did you test this? I'd be surprised if distutils
On Feb 3, 2006, at 12:05 PM, Jeremy Kloth wrote:
> On Friday, February 03, 2006 12:51 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>> Packages that do something with sys.byteorder at setup.py time are
>> probably going to be broken also... but I've never seen that either.
>
> Any package that wraps Expat will probabl
On Friday, February 03, 2006 12:51 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
> Packages that do something with sys.byteorder at setup.py time are
> probably going to be broken also... but I've never seen that either.
Any package that wraps Expat will probably be using sys.byteorder as Expat
needs to know the byte
On Feb 3, 2006, at 11:41 AM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
> On Feb 3, 2006, at 11:01 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
>>
>> On 3-feb-2006, at 20:00, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 3, 2006, at 10:52 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>>>
On 3-feb-2006, at 5:23, Bob Ippolito wrote:
> It fixe
On Feb 3, 2006, at 10:59 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
> On 3-feb-2006, at 18:28, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
>> On Jan 27, 2006, at 12:19 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 27-jan-2006, at 8:46, Kevin Ollivier wrote:
>>>
On Jan 26, 2006, at 10:55 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
> Some exten
On Feb 3, 2006, at 11:01 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
> On 3-feb-2006, at 20:00, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 3, 2006, at 10:52 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 3-feb-2006, at 5:23, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>>>
It fixes a couple of the endian issues in the Mac modules
(platfo
On 3-feb-2006, at 20:00, Bob Ippolito wrote:
On Feb 3, 2006, at 10:52 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
On 3-feb-2006, at 5:23, Bob Ippolito wrote:
It fixes a couple of the endian issues in the Mac modules
(platform.mac_ver, applesingle, gestalt, and the OSType converter
functions)
How do y
On Feb 3, 2006, at 10:52 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
> On 3-feb-2006, at 5:23, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
>> It fixes a couple of the endian issues in the Mac modules
>> (platform.mac_ver, applesingle, gestalt, and the OSType converter
>> functions)
>
> How do you convert four character codes? Is
On 3-feb-2006, at 18:28, Bob Ippolito wrote:
On Jan 27, 2006, at 12:19 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
On 27-jan-2006, at 8:46, Kevin Ollivier wrote:
On Jan 26, 2006, at 10:55 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
Some extensions aren't going to build cleanly universal, and
most users probably aren't goin
On 3-feb-2006, at 5:23, Bob Ippolito wrote:
It fixes a couple of the endian issues in the Mac modules
(platform.mac_ver, applesingle, gestalt, and the OSType converter
functions)
How do you convert four character codes? Is 'abcd' big endian or
platform-native?
Ronald
smime.p7s
Descrip
On Jan 27, 2006, at 12:19 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
> On 27-jan-2006, at 8:46, Kevin Ollivier wrote:
>
>> On Jan 26, 2006, at 10:55 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>>
>>> Some extensions aren't going to build cleanly universal, and most
>>> users probably aren't going to have all the SDKs installed s
On Friday, February 03, 2006, at 01:00PM, Bob Ippolito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>
>> I've made a private branch of python24-maint via SVK that's probably
>> most of the way there. It fixes a couple of the endian issues in the
>> Mac modules (platform.mac_ver, applesingle, gestalt, and the OS
On Feb 2, 2006, at 8:23 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
> On Jan 27, 2006, at 8:31 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
>>
>> On 27-jan-2006, at 16:38, bear wrote:
>>
>>> Ronald Oussoren wrote:
On 27-jan-2006, at 4:22, bear wrote:
> Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>> That part is easy enough. If
On Jan 27, 2006, at 8:31 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
> On 27-jan-2006, at 16:38, bear wrote:
>
>> Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>>>
>>> On 27-jan-2006, at 4:22, bear wrote:
>>>
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
> That part is easy enough. If you want a framework build you'll
> have to patch Makefil
On Feb 1, 2006, at 11:48 PM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
> On 2-feb-2006, at 2:16, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
>>>
>>> From my Makefile.pre.in:
>> --
>>> This is very ugly. As you have noted you can't just drop -arch
>>> ppc because libtool than assumes that you want to do a 3-way
>>> universal build.
On 2-feb-2006, at 2:16, Bob Ippolito wrote:
From my Makefile.pre.in:
--
This is very ugly. As you have noted you can't just drop -arch ppc
because libtool than assumes that you want to do a 3-way universal
build. Probably because libSystem contains a ppc64 binary.
I hope to have a scrip
On Jan 27, 2006, at 8:31 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
> On 27-jan-2006, at 16:38, bear wrote:
>
>> Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>>>
>>> On 27-jan-2006, at 4:22, bear wrote:
>>>
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
> That part is easy enough. If you want a framework build you'll
> have to patch Makefil
On 27-jan-2006, at 16:38, bear wrote:
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
On 27-jan-2006, at 4:22, bear wrote:
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
That part is easy enough. If you want a framework build you'll
have to patch Makefile.pre.in because it contains a hardcoded '-
arch ppc' in the section that builds th
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
> On 27-jan-2006, at 4:22, bear wrote:
>
>> Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>>> That part is easy enough. If you want a framework build you'll have
>>> to patch Makefile.pre.in because it contains a hardcoded '-arch ppc'
>>> in the section that builds that actual framework. Otherw
On Jan 27, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
> On 27-jan-2006, at 4:02, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 26, 2006, at 6:28 PM, Kevin Ollivier wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 26, 2006, at 12:48 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
I'm (very slowly) playing around with adding '-arch
On 27-jan-2006, at 8:46, Kevin Ollivier wrote:
Hi Bob,
On Jan 26, 2006, at 10:55 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
[snip]
Sorry, I wasn't really thinking about extensions. By Panther I
did mean building against the 10.3.9 SDK, which would give the
desired results for the Python binary itself, but
On 27-jan-2006, at 4:22, bear wrote:
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
That part is easy enough. If you want a framework build you'll
have to patch Makefile.pre.in because it contains a hardcoded '-
arch ppc' in the section that builds that actual framework.
Otherwise it should just build (assuming y
On 27-jan-2006, at 4:02, Bob Ippolito wrote:
On Jan 26, 2006, at 6:28 PM, Kevin Ollivier wrote:
On Jan 26, 2006, at 12:48 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
[snip]
I'm (very slowly) playing around with adding '-arch ppc -arch i386'
to the build flags and building on an intel host. That way you wo
Hi Bob,
On Jan 26, 2006, at 10:44 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
[snip]
> Another approach would be to write a little front-end for GCC that
> knows how to mangle the arguments properly so that it ends up
> running GCC 3.3 against the 10.3 SDK then GCC 4 against the
> universal SDK and lipo the o
Hi Bob,
On Jan 26, 2006, at 10:55 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
[snip]
>> Sorry, I wasn't really thinking about extensions. By Panther I did
>> mean building against the 10.3.9 SDK, which would give the desired
>> results for the Python binary itself, but as you said extending
>> that to correct
On Jan 26, 2006, at 10:39 PM, Kevin Ollivier wrote:
> On Jan 26, 2006, at 7:02 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> IMHO, what would be cool is to allow the user to pass the SDK in as
>>> some sort of configure flag or maybe a shell variable, something
>>> like:
>>>
>>> ./configure MACOSX_
On Jan 26, 2006, at 7:02 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>
> On Jan 26, 2006, at 6:28 PM, Kevin Ollivier wrote:
>
>> On Jan 26, 2006, at 12:48 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> I'm (very slowly) playing around with adding '-arch ppc -arch i386'
>>> to the build flags and building on an intel
Hi Bob,
On Jan 26, 2006, at 7:02 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
[snip]
>> IMHO, what would be cool is to allow the user to pass the SDK in as
>> some sort of configure flag or maybe a shell variable, something
>> like:
>>
>> ./configure MACOSX_SDK=/my/path/to/SDK
>>
>> This, along with the addition
Hi,
On Jan 26, 2006, at 7:22 PM, bear wrote:
> Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>> That part is easy enough. If you want a framework build you'll
>> have to
>> patch Makefile.pre.in because it contains a hardcoded '-arch ppc' in
>> the section that builds that actual framework. Otherwise it should
>> jus
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
> That part is easy enough. If you want a framework build you'll have to
> patch Makefile.pre.in because it contains a hardcoded '-arch ppc' in
> the section that builds that actual framework. Otherwise it should
> just build (assuming you have an intel mac of course, cros
On Jan 26, 2006, at 6:28 PM, Kevin Ollivier wrote:
> On Jan 26, 2006, at 12:48 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> I'm (very slowly) playing around with adding '-arch ppc -arch i386'
>> to the build flags and building on an intel host. That way you won't
>> have to use SDKs, which makes it
Hi Ronald,
On Jan 26, 2006, at 12:48 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
[snip]
> I'm (very slowly) playing around with adding '-arch ppc -arch i386'
> to the build flags and building on an intel host. That way you won't
> have to use SDKs, which makes it less likely that configure picks up
> other infor
On 26-jan-2006, at 0:47, bear wrote:
> Bob Ippolito wrote:
>> One thing to note is that you can probably build with minimal
>> patching
>> (via the universal SDK), but the result will only run on Mac OS X
>> 10.4
>> and later. It requires major patching in order to create a Python
>> binary
Bob Ippolito wrote:
> One thing to note is that you can probably build with minimal patching
> (via the universal SDK), but the result will only run on Mac OS X 10.4
> and later. It requires major patching in order to create a Python
> binary that is Mac OS X 10.3 or 10.2 compatible.
My goal i
Kevin Ollivier wrote:
> Oh, BTW, I forgot to mention this but Apple's changes to build Python
> 2.3 Universal are available from here:
>
> http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/tarballs/other/python-16.tar.gz
>
>
> The fixes dir has all the changes they made to the source files.
sweet!
On Jan 25, 2006, at 2:59 PM, bear wrote:
> Kevin Ollivier wrote:
>> How exactly are you doing this? Are you passing these flags into
>> configure, or editing the configure script? I'm seeing that it does
>> matter where in the configure script the options are added. From my
>> tests so far, the t
Hi,
On Jan 25, 2006, at 2:59 PM, bear wrote:
> Kevin Ollivier wrote:
>> How exactly are you doing this? Are you passing these flags into
>> configure, or editing the configure script? I'm seeing that it
>> does matter where in the configure script the options are added.
>> From my tests so
Kevin Ollivier wrote:
> How exactly are you doing this? Are you passing these flags into
> configure, or editing the configure script? I'm seeing that it does
> matter where in the configure script the options are added. From my
> tests so far, the test 'failures' in the configure script are
>
Hi,
On Jan 25, 2006, at 11:02 AM, bear wrote:
>
>
> Kevin Ollivier wrote:
>> Take out the -syslibroot part (which is only needed for libtool,
>> IIUC)
>> and make sure the "-arch ppc -arch i386" bit is in LDFLAGS as well.
>> That's how I got wxWidgets building Universal binaries. :-)
>>
> I had
Kevin Ollivier wrote:
> Take out the -syslibroot part (which is only needed for libtool, IIUC)
> and make sure the "-arch ppc -arch i386" bit is in LDFLAGS as well.
> That's how I got wxWidgets building Universal binaries. :-)
>
I had *just* read your wx-dev post and was going to ask about the
50 matches
Mail list logo
