On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 06:33:03AM -0400, Tres Seaver wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Martin v. L?wis wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
Steve Holden wrote:
Why is it unavoidable that the Mac build will languish behind others? Are we supporting MacOs or aren't we? If we are, why isn't the creation of the build a part of the release process? Clearly it's not a priority given that nobody has seen fit to (or had time to) reply to this mail in three weeks. Maybe the PSF should make it a priority by funding acquisition of the appropriate proprietary hardware (Mac / Windows) for the release manager. Otherwise the avaialbility of binaries is going to lag source releases forever.
Tres,
can you be more explicit? How would such hardware help (whom specifically)?
I assumed that creation of installer binaries for a release depends on having the release manager or a lieutenant have access to the given platform (Windows, OS/X) and tools, For instance, the RM or lieutenant might only have access to such a platform part-time (e.g., only while at work, or only at home). In such a case, providing additional hardware could expedite creation of the binaries.
As with Windows, I personally find that building Python with all the associated libraries is blocked on getting the right libraries installed, not on getting the compilers (which are available to us for free) ... but I'm sure that easy access to hardware is an issue, too. I can provide command-line access to a Mac OS X machine but I'm not sure that's enough. Let me know if anyone wants that. Separately, I'd be happy to put forward a proposal to the PSF to fund RMs and their lieutenants with a Mac or a PC, whichever they needed to keep things moving. It's the least "we" can do, IMO, and hardware is just not that expensive compared to the dedication of the volunteers. If Georg, Benjamin, Martin, or Ronald are interested, please just tell me (or Steve, or the PSF board, or ...) what you want and I'll work on getting it funded. --titus -- C. Titus Brown, ctb@msu.edu