Shouldn't this be installed automatically now that Twisted is easy_installable? Thijs On Apr 1, 2008, at 7:45 AM, weizi wrote:

Down from http://www.zope.org/Members/saffe/zope_interface/folder_contents

...

-----邮件原件----- 发件人: twisted-python-bounces@twistedmatrix.com [mailto:twisted-python-bounces@twistedmatrix.com] 代表 Sergey A. Lipnevich 发送时间: 2008年4月1日 11:03 收件人: twisted-python@twistedmatrix.com 主题: [Twisted-Python] Twisted 8.0.1 for Python 2.5 for Windows is missing Zope

Hi,

I'm sorry if I'm posting to the wrong list. I tried upgrading Twisted from 2.5.0 to 8.0.1 on Windows with Python 2.5.2, but it doesn't work due to missing dependency: zope.interface (I'm trying to run Buildbot on it, if that matters). Upon checking into this 2.5.0 installer for Windows had Zope modules included, but 8.0.1 doesn't. I also can't find relatively recent pre-built zope.interface for Windows, and don't have Visual Studio 2003 installed to build from source, to check if installing zope.interface would fix the problem. Is it possible to include relevant Zope modules back into Windows installer? Thank you!

Sergey.

_______________________________________________ Twisted-Python mailing list Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python

_______________________________________________ Twisted-Python mailing list Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python

Most likely, but zope.interface on Windows would require Visual Studio 2003. I tried easy_install but couldn't complete it.

The error message that says "Python was built with Visual Studio version 7.1, and extensions need to be built with the same version of the compiler" isn't true. Install gcc (I recommend cygwin, but mingw will also work), and put the following stanza into your distutils config file: [build] compiler=mingw32 (You put "compiler=mingw32" regardless of whether you've installed the cygwin version of gcc or the mingw version of gcc.) After that, builds will just work. In particular "easy_install zope.interface" works, and if you don't have zope.interface then when you "easy_install twisted" it will automatically install zope.interface. By the way, building extensions with mingw32 can in theory cause crashes if the extensions pass C++ iostreams back and forth with the main interpreter. I've never experienced such a thing myself and I'm not entirely sure that it is even possible, since I doubt that the main interpreter uses iostreams. Nonetheless, this is apparently one of the reasons why the Python people don't standardize on gcc, as described in this message: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2007-September/ 008255.html Regards, Zooko

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Sergey A. Lipnevich <sergey@optimaltec.com> wrote:

zooko wrote:

...

...

Most likely, but zope.interface on Windows would require Visual Studio 2003. I tried easy_install but couldn't complete it.

The error message that says "Python was built with Visual Studio version 7.1, and extensions need to be built with the same version of the compiler" isn't true.

My console message was explicitly about Visual Studio 2003 (probably because it's Python 2.5), and the machine had Visual Studio 2005 (and 2008) installed so the message was not without merit ;-).

...

Install gcc (I recommend cygwin, but mingw will also work), and put the following stanza into your distutils config file:

Isn't it a bad idea to mix MSVC-built Python and Cygwin GCC-built extensions in the same process?

In this particular case, it's OK: this extension does not use system resources (memory, files...) from the C runtime library. -- Amaury Forgeot d'Arc

On 10:50 am, sergey@optimaltec.com wrote:

Isn't it a bad idea to mix MSVC-built Python and Cygwin GCC-built extensions in the same process?

I believe this is outdated advice. There was a time that Cygwin GCC could not build "normal" windows Python extensions at all; nowadays, however, it can effectively masquerade as a particular version of the regular Microsoft compiler for linking purposes. MinGW's GCC has been able to do this for even longer. I don't quite understand the mechanics of this, but from your perspective it's simple: just do what zooko says ;-).