[Python-Dev] versioned .so files for Python 3.2

[schmir at gmail.com]

Ronald Oussoren <ronaldoussoren at mac.com> writes:

> On 23 Jul, 2010, at 11:54, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
>> 
>> What about the architecture (i386, amd64)?  With every increase in length I
>> start to get more concerned.  We could encode the platform and architecture,
>> but that gets into cryptic territory.  OTOH, would you really co-install i386
>> and amd64 shared libraries on the same machine?  (hello NFS ;).
>
> I don't need this, but then again I primarily use a platform where the vendor has 
> a proper solution for having binaries for multiple architectures ;-)

Well, Apple doesn't prevent people from building 32/64 bit-only python
installations. Doesn't that give you 3 choices i386, amd64, fat??
And you can have framework or non-framework builds.

Doesn't anybody else think this is lost work for very little gain? My
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages directory consumes 200MB on disk. I
couldn't care less if my /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages consumed the
same amount of disk space...

- Ralf