[Python-Dev] Python 2.0b2 note for Windows developers

[Tom]

Debug builds is something I would do myself (I'm on Win32 with VC6).  I
wouldn't thnk of downloading pre-built debug binaries.  For one thing, I
want control over the debug config, and I usually want to generate a browse
database.

Tom.

"Tim Peters" <tim_one at email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.971637856.26569.python-list at python.org...
> [Tim]
> > the files where you want them after unpacking.  What I upload
> > will be an exact image of the build directory structure.  Most
> > feedback I've gotten is that people want exactly that,
> > because they *want* to compile Python
>
> [Barry Scott]
> > I'd not thought of that.
>
> [Mark Hammond]
> > My either.  I must admit mild surprise at that.
>
> Not me, because this is the Python core:  extension writers often have
> problems with their use of the Python C API, and the core is what supplies
> that.  It's not surprising that they want to, e.g., drop some printfs into
> Python itself to see what's going on.  Then they need to recompile Python.
> Plus that all the examples and instructions for building extensions assume
> you're working in a build-- not a release --tree.
>
> > If people want the debug files in the same tree as the build tree,
>
> Some people, not all; by my informal count so far, "most", but it's like 2
> or 3 to 1 -- and that's not only a ratio but a grand-total count.
>
> > it seems all they are trying to do is avoid the initial huge build.  If
> > they intend compiling, why are they asking for the binaries?
>
> The "huge initial build" is no more than a few minutes, *provided* that
they
> don't have to crawl over the web too to get source for, and figure out
what
> to do with, the subprojects w/ a 3rd-party component (_tkinter, bsddb,
> pyexpat and zlib).  Dealing with the latter for the first time can consume
> hours.
>
> > My experience with people wanting debug binaries is that they either
don't
> > want to, or can not build.
>
> If they can't build, it's hard to take their claim to be developing
> extension modules seriously <wink>.
>
> > ...
> > For the last year or so, I have been making Debug builds of win32all
> > available to registered users.  This has always been made available in
> > the "install" structure - quite a bit different than the source/build
> > structure.  I've never been asked for anything different.
>
> Were you *asked* for even that much?  Barry's was the first request Guido
> recalls ever getting.  It sounded reasonable to me to supply *something*,
so
> I did.  But the download stats for this zip file suggest it's not popular
> enough to be worth  arguing over.  Still, I've gotten a little feedback on
> it, and most people seem to be happy.  Not all developers want the same
> thing, and a flat .zip file with no internal directory structure is
> maximally flexible.
>
> If a handful of other Windows developers pop up who swear they can't live
> with a flat file, and can't bear to write a little Python or .bat script
to
> move the files to where they want them, and swear they want some directory
> structure that's a fuzzy generalization of the Windows install structure,
> and swear they all want the same fuzzy generalization (e.g., where do they
> want the .pdb files?  there are none in the install tree now), then, sure,
> I'll make the *other* peoples' lives a bit more difficult by default.  I'm
> not going to ship two (or more!) of these things, though.
>
> view-it-as-a-chance-for-activestate-to-take-over<wink>-ly y'rs  - tim
>
>
>