[Python-Dev] OS X Installer for 3.0.1 and supported versions

["Martin v. Löwis"]

> (This may well have 
> been discussed before so my apologies if I am covering old ground here.)

There might have been discussions on pythonmac lists, but no recent ones
on python-dev, AFAIR.

> The last Apple point release of 10.3 was in 4/2005.  10.4 was also 
> released then. [...]  Needless to say, Apple stopped 
> supporting 10.3 a long time ago and, if 10.6 does release in the not 
> too-distant future, 10.4's days are numbered.

I think this is a matter of personal judgment. If there has been a point
release as recent as three years ago, I wouldn't call that "long ago".
People often continue to use operating systems 10 years after the vendor
stopped supporting it.

So I would personally think that it is desirable to continue supporting
10.3 if possible. For comparison, the Python Windows binaries support
systems back to Windows 2000, but not anymore the non-NT systems (ie.
Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME).

> 1. Release an installer built for 10.5 and higher.
>    pros: delivers 32-support and 64-support;
>    cons: prematurely disenfranchises 10.4 users

I don't think this should be done.

> 2. Release an installer built for 10.4 and higher.
>    pros: one size fits all
>    cons: no 64-bit support, known bugs in 10.4 wrt locale support, etc

Why is it that such an installer couldn't include 64-bit support?
Wouldn't 10.4 just ignore architectures it doesn't know about?
Also, didn't 10.4 already support ppc64?

> 3. Release two installers, one each for 10.4+ and 10.5+.
>     pros: supports current and future systems;
>            delivers 64-support to 10.5+ users;
>            could choose to drop 10.4 installers anytime after 10.6 
>            releases;
>     cons: some extra work to build/release
>              (but not much and not often);
>              others??

I don't think this should be done, either. The whole point of
"universal" binaries is that it simplifies choice for end users.

> With the improvements to the build process and the experience I've had 
> so far, I would strongly recommend option 3.  I am willing to commit to 
> supplying those images for 3.0.1 and beyond until we can get to a more 
> automated process.  Or I'd be happy to work with someone else to make it 
> happen for 3.0.1.  Now that the tarball is out, I will be able to get 
> the images built and tested this weekend.

Ultimately, this is for the port maintainer to decide (IMO), which is
still Ronald Oussouren. If he passes this role on to you, it would be
all fine with me, and you could do with the port whatever you please
(even though I might still dislike the additional clutter of two OSX
installers)

> So, to summarize, I will build and test installer images for 3.0.1 built 
> for 10.4+ and for 10.5+ and will make them available, if there is 
> interest.  If someone else is planning on making official installer(s), 
> I'd be happy to pass along my experiences so far.  In any case, I 
> strongly urge that the minimum support level be 10.4.

I still wish there were 10.3+ installers that also include 64-bit code.
I don't get it why that can't be technically possible.

Regards,
Martin