[Python-Dev] Python 2.0b2 note for Windows developers

[Tim Peters]

[Tim]
> the files where you want them after unpacking.  What I upload
> will be an exact image of the build directory structure.  Most
> feedback I've gotten is that people want exactly that,
> because they *want* to compile Python

[Barry Scott]
> I'd not thought of that.

[Mark Hammond]
> My either.  I must admit mild surprise at that.

Not me, because this is the Python core:  extension writers often have
problems with their use of the Python C API, and the core is what supplies
that.  It's not surprising that they want to, e.g., drop some printfs into
Python itself to see what's going on.  Then they need to recompile Python.
Plus that all the examples and instructions for building extensions assume
you're working in a build-- not a release --tree.

> If people want the debug files in the same tree as the build tree,

Some people, not all; by my informal count so far, "most", but it's like 2
or 3 to 1 -- and that's not only a ratio but a grand-total count.

> it seems all they are trying to do is avoid the initial huge build.  If
> they intend compiling, why are they asking for the binaries?

The "huge initial build" is no more than a few minutes, *provided* that they
don't have to crawl over the web too to get source for, and figure out what
to do with, the subprojects w/ a 3rd-party component (_tkinter, bsddb,
pyexpat and zlib).  Dealing with the latter for the first time can consume
hours.

> My experience with people wanting debug binaries is that they either don't
> want to, or can not build.

If they can't build, it's hard to take their claim to be developing
extension modules seriously <wink>.

> ...
> For the last year or so, I have been making Debug builds of win32all
> available to registered users.  This has always been made available in
> the "install" structure - quite a bit different than the source/build
> structure.  I've never been asked for anything different.

Were you *asked* for even that much?  Barry's was the first request Guido
recalls ever getting.  It sounded reasonable to me to supply *something*, so
I did.  But the download stats for this zip file suggest it's not popular
enough to be worth  arguing over.  Still, I've gotten a little feedback on
it, and most people seem to be happy.  Not all developers want the same
thing, and a flat .zip file with no internal directory structure is
maximally flexible.

If a handful of other Windows developers pop up who swear they can't live
with a flat file, and can't bear to write a little Python or .bat script to
move the files to where they want them, and swear they want some directory
structure that's a fuzzy generalization of the Windows install structure,
and swear they all want the same fuzzy generalization (e.g., where do they
want the .pdb files?  there are none in the install tree now), then, sure,
I'll make the *other* peoples' lives a bit more difficult by default.  I'm
not going to ship two (or more!) of these things, though.

view-it-as-a-chance-for-activestate-to-take-over<wink>-ly y'rs  - tim