[Pythonmac-SIG] Appscript Installer 1.1a1
bob at redivi.com
Fri Jun 3 08:45:15 CEST 2005
On Jun 2, 2005, at 11:19 PM, Nick Matsakis wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>> MacPython 2.4.1 looks in the site-packages directory embedded in its
>> framework. There is only one supported framework location (/Library/
>> Frameworks), so there's no need to care about alternatives.
> Frameworks can also appear in application bundles too, though it
> may not
> be the case with the Python 2.4 framework. It seems like the
> /Library/Python system is a better one to standardize on, since it
> the way that a lot of other software is installed on the mac. (e.g.
> /Library/Java). Also, it seems strange to install into a framework
> doesn't exist. Maybe the 2.4 installer should just be a separate
What planet are you on? :)
MacPython 2.4.1 only exists in /Library/Frameworks. No other
installation location is supported unless you compile it yourself.
If you compile it yourself with a different prefix, you lose
privileges to use installers. So far, nobody cares. If it's shoved
into an application, it shouldn't be touched.
An installer, as built by bdist_mpkg, won't install anything unless
Python is where it expects it to be. Thus, it's not possible to
install into a framework that doesn't exist.
Maybe I'm missing something. Are you saying that you have an
installer that attempts to install an extension that's "compatible
with either Python 2.3 or Python 2.4"? Well, if that's what you're
saying, then it's not going to work anyway. Extensions are only
compatible across micro Python revisions (i.e. Python 2.3.0 and
Python 2.3.5), if and only if they were linked in such a way that
allows it (i.e. with PantherPythonFix installed on a Panther machine).
>> If you build the installer with py2app's bdist_mpkg, you don't
>> have to
>> care about these details, because it does the right thing.
> What do you mean?
More information about the Pythonmac-SIG