[issue19] Will setuptools on Mac Python accept fat eggs?
New submission from Zooko O'Whielacronx <zooko@zooko.com>: There was a time, last November, when, if I understand it correctly, setuptools on the standard Python that comes with Mac OS X wouldn't accept fat eggs for Mac OS X 10.4 or higher. Here is the pythonmac-sig discussion: http://www.nabble.com/does-pkg_resources-think-that-%22macosx-10.3%22-is-inc... Ronald Oussoren has committed the fix for the comparison of Mac OS X version numbers from '<' to '>=', so as of Python 2.5.2 that problem is fixed. However, he mentioned other problems which I didn't understand: """the config/Makefile in Apple's Python.framework isn't configured for building universal binaries. And to make matters even worse: I'm pretty sure that setuptools used to know that 'fat' builds are compatible with 'i386' and 'ppc' architectures (at least on OSX), but that code no longer seems to be there. """ What is the status of this issue now? ---------- messages: 33 nosy: zooko priority: bug status: unread title: Will setuptools on Mac Python accept fat eggs? _______________________________________________ Setuptools tracker <setuptools@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/setuptools/issue19> _______________________________________________
On 3 Jun, 2008, at 1:50, Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote:
New submission from Zooko O'Whielacronx <zooko@zooko.com>:
There was a time, last November, when, if I understand it correctly, setuptools on the standard Python that comes with Mac OS X wouldn't accept fat eggs for Mac OS X 10.4 or higher.
Here is the pythonmac-sig discussion:
http://www.nabble.com/does-pkg_resources-think-that-%22macosx-10.3%22-is-inc...
Ronald Oussoren has committed the fix for the comparison of Mac OS X version numbers from '<' to '>=', so as of Python 2.5.2 that problem is fixed. However, he mentioned other problems which I didn't understand:
"""the config/Makefile in Apple's Python.framework isn't configured for building universal binaries.
And to make matters even worse: I'm pretty sure that setuptools used to know that 'fat' builds are compatible with 'i386' and 'ppc' architectures (at least on OSX), but that code no longer seems to be there. """
What is the status of this issue now?
That's an issue in Apple's build of Python and not something we can fix. Ronald
On Jun 3, 2008, at 1:12 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
That's an issue in Apple's build of Python and not something we can fix.
So what is the status of this issue now, from the perspective of a user? Do we have to avoid building binary distributions on certain versions of Mac OS X, or certain CPU architectures? Do we need to build separate "PPC" and "x86" binary distributions? Or is everything going to work fine and, as a user of Python and distutils and setuptools, I can ignore this issue? Regards, Zooko
participants (3)
-
Ronald Oussoren -
zooko -
Zooko O'Whielacronx