On 14 Dec, 2012, at 20:37, Russell E. Owen wrote:
> Does anyone know of a version of bdist_mpkg that works with Python 3?
I don't know of a py3k port of bdist_mpkg.
>
> If not, how might one create a Mac binary installer for Python 3?
You could port bdist_mpkg yourself, doing that should be
On 17 Dec, 2012, at 19:03, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal
wrote:
> Oops hit send by accident .
>
>
> On Dec 17, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal
> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 17, 2012, at 1:34 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You could port bdist_mpkg yourself, doing that sho
Oops hit send by accident .
On Dec 17, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal
wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2012, at 1:34 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>> You could port bdist_mpkg yourself, doing that should be too hard. That
>> said, bdist_mpkg creates an old package format that doesn't
>>> Do you think it would be hard to update bdist_mpkg to support the new
>>> format? It is nice to have a simple, pure python, way to build a.
> I don't know, I haven't looked into that yet (but will likely do so for the
> python.org installers). I don't even know if the new format is properly
In article
,
Chris Barker - NOAA Federal wrote:
> > The real problem with binary eggs is that pip doesn't install them, and pip
> > seems to be the
> > new hotness w.r.t. package management at the moment.
>
> Indeed it does -- I hadn't realized it didn't install binary eggs -- I
> guess it's b
