[Pythonmac-SIG] Someone had PIL trouble on i386 10.4.6 Python 2.4 IIRC--I succeeded this evening

[Ronald Oussoren]

On 19-apr-2006, at 18:49, Christopher Barker wrote:

> Bob Ippolito wrote:
>> *ALWAYS* prefer convenience over space.  Never make separate
>> distributions for i386 and PPC.  Simplicity is key.
>
> Absolutely.
>
>> I will no longer accept single-architecture packages for
>> pythonmac.org/packages except under special circumstances
>
> However... Right now, we don't have Universal packages for most  
> things.
> This creates a difficult situation for folks, particularly those on
> Intel Macs. It is a serious challenge to build Universal packages, at
> least for those packages that rely on third party libs (PIL,  
> Matplotlib,
> wxPython....)

I'll post the script I'm using to build universal packages this weekend.
I have recipes for the software I'm using and several other. That  
includes
PIL (including jpeg, tif and freetype support).

> About those libs:
>
> As it is a challenge to build universal libs, and a bunch of common
> python packages require the same libs, I'd love to see a repository of
> Universal libs for use with Python packages.

It is actually not very hard to build univeral libraries for most  
software.
I'd really prefer to ship addon packages as standalone eggs.

>
> My suggestion:
>
> A ExtraLibs.mpkg, right there with the packages on pythonmac.org that
> includes Universal shared libs required by some common packages. They
> could perhaps be installed in the Python Framework, so they won't
> interfere with anything else.
>
> a) is this possible?
yes

> b) is this a good idea?
no.

This is an arbitrary selection of libraries, why these and not others?

Ronald