[Pythonmac-SIG] Framework build of 2.4.2

[Bob Ippolito]

On Oct 30, 2005, at 8:36 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:

>
> On Friday, October 28, 2005, at 09:09PM, Bob Ippolito  
> <bob at redivi.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> On Oct 28, 2005, at 5:03 AM, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 27-okt-2005, at 23:37, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Oct 27, 2005, at 2:29 PM, Samuel M. Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Will there be a framework installer for python 2.4.2?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not particularly soon unless someone else does it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I can boot into 10.3 if necessary. How does one build the  
>>> "unofficial
>>> offical" Python installer? I suppose by running the 'build'  
>>> script in
>>> Mac/OSX/Dist.
>>>
>>
>> To my recollection, yes.  There are three caveats that I can remember
>> though:
>>
>> 1. It does not make a pydoc symlink for /usr/local/bin, that should
>> be fixed (a make frameworkinstall issue)
>> 2. It might make a header file that won't allow extensions to compile
>> on 10.4, check that first (that's what the Tiger fix is)
>> 3. Something to do with the documentation and IDLE and/or PythonIDE
>> might not work?  I don't remember the details, and I never tried to
>> fix it.
>>
>>
>>> Do I need to install other software before trying to build the
>>> installer? Waste springs to mind, BerkeleyDB is another one.
>>>
>>
>> I would suggest having Waste, BerkeleyDB, readline and TclTkAqua
>> installed when building it, and I would make sure that BerkeleyDB and
>> readline are static so that there aren't any dylib dependencies there
>> (Waste is only available static anyway).
>>
>
> Another alternative is makeing sure that readline and BerkeyDB get  
> installed inside the framework. Building static libraries is  
> easier, and that's what I've done.
>
> I'm currently building the DMG. There is one problem though, the  
> script refers to 'setupDocs.py' for building the documentation, and  
> that isn't in the 2.4.2 source archive ... Never mind, I've found  
> the script, it is named 'Doc/setup.py'.
>
> One other thing: would it be wise to create /Library/Python/2.4  
> with symlinks to relevant parts of the framework? I'm mostly  
> thinking of the directories "bin" and "site-packages". The reason  
> I'd like to do this is twofold:
>
> 1) listing /Library/Python/2.4/site-packages would be an easy way  
> to check what is installed.
> 2) unless you use bdist_mpkg to install packages or have  
> a .pydistutils.cfg scripts will end up inside the framework, and will
>     theforefore be non-existant for most users.
>
> I had to patch the sources anyway, might as wel add this  
> improvement as well.

I don't think we should do this.  In theory, it will conflict with  
10.5 -- which is very likely to have a /Library/Python/2.4/site- 
packages which is a symlink to somewhere else!

-bob