Bill Janssen wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Bill Janssen firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
If you can run a pure Python module that does not depend on any C extension, then that platform has the support needed to run Python.
This is certainly a point of view. One that many end-users wouldn't understand :-).
Perhaps, but it's clear-cut. Is OS X not properly supported because it can't run the _winreg module? I just don't like labeling a platform as unsupported just because ctypes doesn't compile on it.
I assume _winreg runs everywhere Python is said to run, and there's a Windows registry to examine, so I think it's a different kettle of fish. ctypes doesn't run everywhere Python is said to run, and there are dynamic libraries to call into.
I think it would be great if we could get some AIX, HP-UX, and Solaris boxes for Thomas to work on. What would motivate IBM, H-P, and Sun to donate such gear? Perhaps each of the companies have an office somewhere that could help with this resource allocation? For instance, talking to the "AIX Collaboration Center" of IBM (email@example.com)?
And these are all SYSV derivatives, aren't they? So perhaps it's some common fix for all three?
OK, I know people in Sun and possibly H-P I could ask, and I may have an arm or two to twist to get to IBM. But worst-case, what budget would the infrastructure committee need for the hardware and (more importantly) if the hardware materialized, would there be manpower to maintain the platforms as "Python supported"?
The more libraries that use ctypes to call into native functionality, the more important it becomes to have ctypes run, even if only to implement platform-specific functionality on the given platforms. I would like "being able to call a wide range of native libraries" to be a Python claim on all platforms, even when the native libraries are platform-proprietary.