[Pythonmac-SIG] Re: Step-by-step howto for testing new Mach{ho}Python architecture
Dan Grassi
dan@grassi.org
Wed, 7 Aug 2002 08:18:18 -0400
> On Sunday, August 4, 2002, at 10:50 PM, Jack Jansen wrote:
> Question to everyone: should I add the "make
> installunixprograms" to the "make osxapps" of the main Makefile?
> I'm a bit reluctant to do so, as people may want to keep the
> unix tools point to a non-framework Python (for instance if
> Apple ships Python with Jaguar).
Yes, people who install a new version expect everything to reflect it by
default. It would be very confusing to have the /Applications/Python
tools use one version and the unix tools to use another (pre-install)
version.
> Hmm, how about the following three targets (and getting rid of
> "make osxapps") in the main Makefile:
> make frameworkinstall - does what it does now
> make frameworkinstallapps - does what osxapps does now
> make frameworkinstallunixtools - does "make installunixprograms"
> in the Mac/OSX Makefile.
>
> Comments?
I suggest one standard target: "install". Removing the OS X
Applications is simple enough but why would this be desirable? Possibly
a better place for the OS X Tools might be
/Applications/Utilities/Python.
The basic install should install the framework version, it is the OS X
and Python default so no extra hints are needed in the target, they only
beg the question of what other possibilities should be considered and
that is not a good thing for the average user. The unix tools links are
necessary so that various Python programs will just run else it will
look like the Python install failed. Keep in mind that many people will
use Python just to run Python programs without ever writing any Python
code.
Let's not complicate things and let's keep the "batteries included", by
default.
But there is another issue: versions. While OS X has a good way of
maintaining multiple versions eventually it will be desirable to remove
obsolete versions. In time this will become a problem and some thought
might be given to it now.
Dan