[Pythonmac-SIG] Someone had PIL trouble on i386 10.4.6 Python 2.4 IIRC--I succeeded this evening
ronaldoussoren at mac.com
Thu Apr 20 08:47:05 CEST 2006
On 20-apr-2006, at 0:53, Christopher Barker wrote:
> Bob Ippolito wrote:
>> The libs should all be statically linked to the extensions, they
>> shouldn't be separate in the installer.
> Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>> I'd prefer to have fully self contained packages, and preferably
>> eggs at that. Having a shared libary makes it *harder* to
>> update extensions using libpng or libfreetype.
> No one answered my question directly, but both Bob and Ronald have
> It's better for each package to statically link any libs it needs
> (unless Apple provides them), even though that means that a given
> program may well end up using three copies of the same lib.
> Just to be totally clear: Is there any problem with the same program
> using three slightly different versions of the same lib?
Thanks to two-level namespaces that shouldn't be a problem unless two
extensions share datastructures from a library. An example of this are
the curses and panel extensions in the stdlib, both link to libcurses
and they share datastructures from curses. You'll see a hard crash when
those extensions are staticly linked to curses.
>> I'll have to package up my package build script one of these days ;-)
> What does it do? Something different than bdist_mpkg ?
Its one level higher: a script that uses bdist_egg and bdist_mpkg to
binary packages given a list of recipes. That makes it a lot easier to
tweak the build process or rebuild packages when the libraries they use
are changed. Its the result of a pet peeve: I like binary packages on
pythonmac.org, but don't like the fact that most of them seem to build
by hand and that some required manual prodding to get them to work.
More information about the Pythonmac-SIG