Removal of the Mac modules resulted in the Mac framework install breaking because many of the install scripts depended upon the modules (see #3174). My current plan is too make a built copy of the IDLE part of the distribution and kill off every other script that uses the external modules. Comments? -- Cheers, Benjamin Peterson "There's no place like 127.0.0.1."
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
Removal of the Mac modules resulted in the Mac framework install breaking because many of the install scripts depended upon the modules (see #3174). My current plan is too make a built copy of the IDLE part of the distribution and kill off every other script that uses the external modules. Comments?
Isn't that an indication that the modules in question are still needed and should thus not be removed ?! -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Source
Python/Zope Consulting and Support ... http://www.egenix.com/ mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ... http://zope.egenix.com/ mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ... http://python.egenix.com/
2008-07-07: EuroPython 2008, Vilnius, Lithuania :::: Try mxODBC.Zope.DA for Windows,Linux,Solaris,MacOSX for free ! :::: eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 9:40 AM, M.-A. Lemburg <mal@egenix.com> wrote:
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
Removal of the Mac modules resulted in the Mac framework install breaking because many of the install scripts depended upon the modules (see #3174). My current plan is too make a built copy of the IDLE part of the distribution and kill off every other script that uses the external modules. Comments?
Isn't that an indication that the modules in question are still needed and should thus not be removed ?!
Ronald didn't seem to think so. Benjamin's suggestion is based on Ronald's idea. As for the idea of having a built version with IDLE, as long as someone else can build it from source, that's fine. As Ronald said, sticking the file in Mac/Tools and having the build use those files as needed to build IDLE should be fine if they are truly only funky stuff that IDLE uses. -Brett
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
As for the idea of having a built version with IDLE, as long as someone else can build it from source, that's fine. As Ronald said, sticking the file in Mac/Tools and having the build use those files as needed to build IDLE should be fine if they are truly only funky stuff that IDLE uses.
So long as 2.6 is around we can build the IDLE. Eventually, I think, the Mac modules/scripts can be packaged for PyPI.
-Brett
-- Cheers, Benjamin Peterson "There's no place like 127.0.0.1."
On 28 Jun, 2008, at 22:15, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Brett Cannon <brett@python.org> wrote:
As for the idea of having a built version with IDLE, as long as someone else can build it from source, that's fine. As Ronald said, sticking the file in Mac/Tools and having the build use those files as needed to build IDLE should be fine if they are truly only funky stuff that IDLE uses.
So long as 2.6 is around we can build the IDLE. Eventually, I think, the Mac modules/scripts can be packaged for PyPI.
Most of Mac/Modules and Lib/plat-mac is only of historical interest anyway. That's the major reason why these got dropped in 3.0. The Carbon bindings have some interest, but only very limited because the role of Carbon is getting smaller and smaller in OSX. I don't think that anyone would be interested in actually maintaining the Carbon bindings (another reason for dropping them), just modernizing them to wrap all current APIs instead of whatever was current in MacOS9 is a lot of work. Ronald
-Brett
-- Cheers, Benjamin Peterson "There's no place like 127.0.0.1." _______________________________________________ stdlib-sig mailing list stdlib-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/stdlib-sig
On 28 Jun, 2008, at 18:40, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Benjamin Peterson wrote:
Removal of the Mac modules resulted in the Mac framework install breaking because many of the install scripts depended upon the modules (see #3174). My current plan is too make a built copy of the IDLE part of the distribution and kill off every other script that uses the external modules. Comments?
Isn't that an indication that the modules in question are still needed and should thus not be removed ?!
No. The best way to build standalone application bundles for the Mac is using py2app. As py2app isn't part of the stdlib this cannot be used to build IDLE.app. Ronald
participants (4)
-
Benjamin Peterson -
Brett Cannon -
M.-A. Lemburg -
Ronald Oussoren