[Pythonmac-SIG] Additional binary packages for Python2.3rc1 on
bob at redivi.com
Mon Jul 28 19:01:27 EDT 2003
On Monday, Jul 28, 2003, at 17:26 America/New_York, Jack Jansen wrote:
> do you feel like becoming co-scapegoat, so the two of us together
> become responsible for the contents of the standard PackMan database?
> I have a couple of reasons for asking this. The least important one is
> that anything that gets work out of my hands into someone else's is
> welcome. The more important one (really!) is that the "supplier side"
> of PackMan needs work, as you are already experiencing, and I could
> use help with the design. The plan is that I'll do a PEP on PackMan
> after 2.3 is out, and initially I thought I could punt on the supplier
> side of things, but I've already noticed that even for a one-man
> scapegoat it would be good to have some organisation of things so you
> don't spend hours frantically searching the net when a new version of
> Python (or one of the packages used) comes out.
Sure, I'll help out.. I have to compile/acquire these packages for
myself anyways, I may as well spend the extra time to help the rest of
MacPython out :)
I have some ideas for the direction I think PackageManager should go,
especially wrt security/authority.. but I have to think about those a
lot more before I can write them down. For example, the version of
Python these things are for should be encoded in the URL, and as we've
all noticed distutils.util.get_platform() may not necessarily the way
the packages should be broken up.. especially with regard to pure
python libraries that are only dependent on the capabilities of Python
(i.e. 2.2+, 2.3+, etc). I imagine on other platforms,
distutils.util.getplatform() isn't even that useful. As an example,
Linux is pretty much always going to spit out linux-i686 regardless of
what version of glibc or whatever it was built with. I also don't
recall seeing any categorization metadata in the plist?
> Oh, and I'll go through some of your message now anyway:
> On donderdag, jul 24, 2003, at 04:13 Europe/Amsterdam, Bob Ippolito
>> I've setup a repository for several packages that I use that aren't
>> in jack's list yet, or weren't compiled correctly for the non-fink
>> The Package Manager URL is:
>> I couldn't find what jack has been using to build binary packages, so
>> I wrote one that makes it easy. It's at:
>> Usage of makepimp is:
>> makepimp.py modulename versionnumber
>> It spits out a plist template of what you'd paste into the package
>> manager file.
>> If you use it, you'll want to change HTTPBASE and UPLOADCMD up at the
>> modulename must already be installed in your site-packages, I have
>> not tested userdir installation, but it works for me.
> I like makepimp a lot (especially the generation of the xml code!) but
> there are two issues with it:
> 1. It creates a binary installer from an installed package. What I do,
> and what I think I prefer, is running "python setup.py bdist_dumb" in
> the build directory.
The reasons I did it from installed packages are:
(a) I had no idea how you were doing it, so I guessed
(b) I'm not familiar with all the features of distutils, since I'm
currently not a release guy for any real project
(c) I saw ./Library/Frameworks/...../site-packages/ in your tarballs
and I was like "ooh, that's easy". I still haven't read the source for
PackageManager to see if it even works for ~/Library/Python
> 2. It has no way to customize the fields in the XML, which means you
> have to edit them by hand, which means the version (X+1) of the
> package means to have to start from scratch again.
We all have mice, right? ;) Reading in an existing template dict
would be nice, and trivial to do. makepimp was a quick hack, it wasn't
a tool I was planning to use forever :) I'll roll these two features
into makepimp when I find the time.
>> The packages I have up so far are:
>> readline 2.3c1
>> PIL 1.1.4 (with static libjpeg support, no tkinter support)
>> egenix-mx-base 2.0.4
>> ctypes 0.6.2
>> I'll be adding more sometime (primarily: bsddb3, pyPgSQL, pygame,
> Of these I definitely want readline before 2.3 is announced. Could you
> give me a recipy for building it? That is, assuming you've built it
> with a static libreadline, which is what I need. PIL also needs to be
> built with a static libjpeg, indeed, but also with Tkinter. Did you
> modify the existing PM recipe for building PIL from source, or did you
> start form scratch?
> If the former, what did you have to do?
readline: http://undefined.org/python/readline-0.0.1.tgz (this has
been around for a few weeks, I posted it to the list.. it actually
"urllib"'s the tarball from gnu.org and compiles it with the right
options to make it static)
PIL: I'm pretty sure I did this by hand.. it does what you want it to
do if you *only* have libjpeg.a on your library path, which is what I
arranged for it. If you download the SDL_image source from
http://www.libsdl.org/projects/SDL_image/ and extract
PBProjects.tar.gz(?) you can rake out their statically compiled libjpeg
(I think I compiled my own, but I compiled SDL_image for Panther
yesterday and I noticed that all the SDL source packages come with a
PBProjects.tar.gz file that comes with precompiled static versions of
all their OS X deps, which was a nice surprise). I can make a recipe
that builds with tkinter.
>> I don't like the current "you have to go fetch this dependency" way
>> of doing things, so I'll probably end up writing some python-based
>> installers for libraries like SDL, Tcl/Tk, BerkeleyDB, PostgreSQL,
>> etc. that will download the binary from somewhere and install, or at
>> least open up the .pkg for you.
> I definitely want this too, at least for some packages (Tcl/Tk,
> wxPython). For others (Developer Tools) I think it may be overkill.
> And maybe we should stop at opening the .pkg, or even at opening the
I agree with Developer Tools being overkill. I'd also particularly
like the SDL frameworks (pygame dependencies) to fit into this scheme.
More information about the Pythonmac-SIG