[Pythonmac-SIG] Additional binary packages for Python2.3rc1 on 10.2.6

[Jack Jansen]

Bob,
do you feel like becoming co-scapegoat, so the two of us together 
become responsible for the contents of the standard PackMan database?

I have a couple of reasons for asking this. The least important one is 
that anything that gets work out of my hands into someone else's is 
welcome. The more important one (really!) is that the "supplier side" 
of PackMan needs work, as you are already experiencing, and I could use 
help with the design. The plan is that I'll do a PEP on PackMan after 
2.3 is out, and initially I thought I could punt on the supplier side 
of things, but I've already noticed that even for a one-man scapegoat 
it would be good to have some organisation of things so you don't spend 
hours frantically searching the net when a new version of Python (or 
one of the packages used) comes out.

Interested?

Oh, and I'll go through some of your message now anyway:


On donderdag, jul 24, 2003, at 04:13 Europe/Amsterdam, Bob Ippolito 
wrote:

> I've setup a repository for several packages that I use that aren't in 
> jack's list yet, or weren't compiled correctly for the non-fink user.
>
> The Package Manager URL is:
> http://undefined.org/python/pimp/darwin-6.6-Power_Macintosh.plist
>
> I couldn't find what jack has been using to build binary packages, so 
> I wrote one that makes it easy.  It's at:
> http://undefined.org/python/makepimp.py
>
> Usage of makepimp is:
> 	makepimp.py modulename versionnumber
>
> It spits out a plist template of what you'd paste into the package 
> manager file.
>
> If you use it, you'll want to change HTTPBASE and UPLOADCMD up at the 
> top.
>
> modulename must already be installed in your site-packages, I have not 
> tested userdir installation, but it works for me.

I like makepimp a lot (especially the generation of the xml code!) but 
there are two issues with it:
1. It creates a binary installer from an installed package. What I do, 
and what I think I prefer, is running "python setup.py bdist_dumb" in 
the build directory.
2. It has no way to customize the fields in the XML, which means you 
have to edit them by hand, which means the version (X+1) of the package 
means to have to start from scratch again.

> The packages I have up so far are:
> 	readline 2.3c1
> 	PIL 1.1.4 (with static libjpeg support, no tkinter support)
> 	egenix-mx-base 2.0.4
> 	ctypes 0.6.2
>
> I'll be adding more sometime (primarily: bsddb3, pyPgSQL, pygame, 
> twisted),

Of these I definitely want readline before 2.3 is announced. Could you 
give me a recipy for building it? That is, assuming you've built it 
with a static libreadline, which is what I need. PIL also needs to be 
built with a static libjpeg, indeed, but also with Tkinter. Did you 
modify the existing PM recipe for building PIL from source, or did you 
start form scratch?
If the former, what did you have to do?

> I don't like the current "you have to go fetch this dependency" way of 
> doing things, so I'll probably end up writing some python-based 
> installers for libraries like SDL, Tcl/Tk, BerkeleyDB, PostgreSQL, 
> etc. that will download the binary from somewhere and install, or at 
> least open up the .pkg for you.

I definitely want this too, at least for some packages (Tcl/Tk, 
wxPython). For others (Developer Tools) I think it may be overkill. And 
maybe we should stop at opening the .pkg, or even at opening the .dmg.
--
- Jack Jansen        <Jack.Jansen at oratrix.com>        
http://www.cwi.nl/~jack -
- If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma 
Goldman -