After spending some time getting bundlebuilder to work with my 64-bit
programs, I have begun to wonder: what's the rationale for removing it
from Python 3.X?
Its Carbon dependencies can be eliminated by simply removing the "import
argvemulator" statement, so (as far as I can see) there is no s
Kevin Walzer wrote:
Bundlbuilder
doesn't really argvemulation anyway, since hooks for this exist in all
the major GUI libraries (Tk, wxPython, and certainly PyObjC).
I actually use argv emulation more for non-gui apps -- a way for folks
that don't like the command line to do some simple proce
Hi,
I am porting an app that was initially written for Windows and Linux
to OSX. For Linux an .rpm is created, for Windows I used a py2exe
setup.py script.
I adapted that script for OSX, and it seems to do a lot of work,
generates an App Bundle, but in the Contents/Resources directory
only the m
On 9 Dec, 2009, at 14:08, Kevin Walzer wrote:
> After spending some time getting bundlebuilder to work with my 64-bit
> programs, I have begun to wonder: what's the rationale for removing it from
> Python 3.X?
>
> Its Carbon dependencies can be eliminated by simply removing the "import
> argv
Ron,
Search this list and you'll a number of good discussions of py2app, but
a few hints:
1) use the latest version:
easy_install py2app==dev
(at least I think that's the syntax)
generates an App Bundle, but in the Contents/Resources directory
only the main .py file is created, not all oth
On 12/9/09 12:32 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:
Kevin Walzer wrote:
Bundlbuilder doesn't really argvemulation anyway, since hooks for this
exist in all the major GUI libraries (Tk, wxPython, and certainly
PyObjC).
I actually use argv emulation more for non-gui apps -- a way for folks
that don't
On 12/9/09 4:17 PM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
What's the best way to keep bundlebuilder available for Python 3.x? Submit a
feature request at the bug tracker? Or separate it out, and submit a PyPi
project?
Separating it out would be better. I'm not interested in re-adding
bundlebuilder.
Unde
Ronald Oussoren wrote:
What really should be done is restart py2app development,
Unless PyInstaller is looking good -- there may be an advantage to a
code base with more people working on it. Mac folks would still need to
do the Mac-specific stuff, but not the rest of it. bbFreeze isn't bad,
I just want to add a vote (plea, whimper) from somebody who writes
Python programs, doesn't feel particularly comfortable with Terminal
or bash, and wants to be able to make distributable apps for Mac. And
keep making them as Python and associated libs get updated. I may be
wrong, but I t
On 10 Dec, 2009, at 0:26, Christopher Barker wrote:
> Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
>> What really should be done is restart py2app development,
>
> Unless PyInstaller is looking good -- there may be an advantage to a code
> base with more people working on it. Mac folks would still need to do the
10 matches
Mail list logo
