[Pythonmac-SIG] install again?
Bob Ippolito
bob at redivi.com
Tue Feb 7 00:21:05 CET 2006
On Feb 6, 2006, at 12:15 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:
> NOTE: I think we can recommend the same thing at this point for all
> users of OS-X 10.3 and 10.4. It also looks like the new Universal
> build
> may become the news recommended Python for OS-X 10.3.9 and above, but
> it's not ready yet.
Caveat emptor. You can not build extensions on 10.3.9 when using a
universal build. The toolchain required (gcc4, 10.4 SDK, etc.) is
just not available on that platform... and the CCFLAGS, LDFLAGS, etc.
are all primed for that. Specifically, it would fall over on -
isysroot, because that's gcc4 only, and also -arch i386 because
Apple's public compilers didn't have support for that at that time.
That said, you'd be able to use it, and install all the eggs/mpkgs
you want, but you would not be able to use it with a compiler. That
is, unless someone goes through the trouble of figuring out all the
distutils.sysconfig hacks to make that work -- and it sure as hell
isn't going to be me since I don't really have (or want) a 10.3
machine to test with.
If you were able to compile extensions with 10.3.9 using the
universal build, then you would only be able to produce PPC-only
builds, and we'd need to add more hacks to setuptools so that it also
accepts architecture specific binaries... right now it declares its
architecture as "fat" and will only use eggs marked as fat.
That goes both ways, users of the universal build can't use "legacy"
eggs (marked with ppc or i386 architecture) from the current builds.
-bob
More information about the Pythonmac-SIG
mailing list