Update to Python 2.3 on Red Hat Linux 9

[Bengt Richter]

On 01 Sep 2003 07:56:31 +0200, martin at v.loewis.de (Martin v. =?iso-8859-15?q?L=F6wis?=) wrote:

>bokr at oz.net (Bengt Richter) writes:
>
>> >Can you elaborate? What is this "this" you are referring to?
>> >And what do you mean by "highly automated"?
>> >
>> s/this/finding out all the libraries ... and compiling these for 2.3/
>> 
>> s/highly automated/make -someopts someargs/
>> 
>> or some setup.py stuff? distutils?
>
>Ah... You should perhaps try to build Python yourself some time and
>see how it works. Obtaining all the prerequisites is a gross PITA, as
I haven't built Python on Linux or BSD yet. I have re/built other stuff. Some
things were no-brainers, some not ;-/

>you have to determine what header files and libraries are needed, and
>then determine how your Linux distributor chose to package them - or,
>if you are using a trademark Unix (Solaris, HP-UX), you even might
>have to install (build, configure) the prerequisites.
>
>Once the prerequisites are present, this is highly automated, and
>distutils figures it all out.
>
How about automating the prerequisites part ? Assuming an individual solves the problem
for her/his platform, is there a mechanism for contributing a script that does all the
work [1] (assuming a working core installation with standard libs) of making directories
and gathering 3rd party pieces together from the net and checking versions and dates
and md5's etc. and building and installing it?

[1] Of course, you'd want to read such a script carefully and/or check md5's against
a trusted recommendation post, etc. before running it ;-)

[1a] BTW, how would you name such a script, assuming it is doing the job for some app xxx version
yyy for platform zzz?
[1b] Is there a budding collection somewhere already? On python.org?

Note that this is a little different from contributing back an enhanced setup.py to
a 3rd party product author, though not mutually exclusive (and courtesy would demand
some attempt at coordination, even if no permission issues exist). IOW, porting scripts
could happen even if the author was too busy to update his/her site's distutil stuff.

>> E.g., for 2.2 I recompiled PIL and zlib from sources on windows, and
>> if there was a precanned deal, I missed it & re-invented just enough
>> to get by ;-/
>
>Windows is a different story entirely. You read and follow the
>instructions in PCBuild/README, that's it.
>
Yes -- for the core distribution, using MSVC++6.0 (nice job, Tim et al ;-)
-- but beyond that (3rd party) ISTM more like a porting job than config and install.
(I'm sure YMMV by platform).

So I am wondering if there could be porting scripts in the future, downloadable
from python.org, so that getting most of the desirable 3rd party stuff and/or upgrading
them would be a one-stop shopping experience (not that it all should be hosted on python.org,
just trusted scripts for getting the pieces from their sources and doing the builds and installs).

Regards,
Bengt Richter