[Pythonmac-SIG] For your eyes only: MacPython 2.3 final

[Jack Jansen]

On woensdag, jul 30, 2003, at 22:57 Europe/Amsterdam, Bob Ippolito 
wrote:
> Well, the source recipe that downloads/compiles the dependencies makes 
> it easier for us to create the binary package (i.e. it makes it easy 
> for you, who has fink installed, to create binary packages that do not 
> depend on fink ;)

You have a point here. In PackMan 0.3 we have a very rough split in 
types of packages: source, binary and "other". Moreover, the "other" 
packages don't really work:-) If for "other" packages you would get 
complete control over the Python code, by means of an entry 
PackageClassURL that would point to a piece of code that would be used 
just as PimpPackage_source or PimpPackage_binary are used nowadays I 
think we have the machinery to do what you want.

On the other hand: it smells of creeping featurism.

Opinions?

> I'm about to send a large email out with ideas for the future of 
> Package Manager as I see it.  Currently I'm more interested in adding 
> cryptographic authenticity to Package Manager before I start 
> maintaining a lot of packages.

Ok, please do!

> OH, one thing that's important to note is that XCode *DOES NOT HAVE 
> PBXBUILD*, which I believe the Python 2.3 build process depends on.  
> Instead, it's renamed to xcodebuild!!!  Donovan and I figured this out 
> today.  If you still have pbxbuild on your machine, it's from a 
> previous installation and is linking to old frameworks and doing old 
> things (they renamed a lot of Developer Tools frameworks and stuff).

Ah, it's good to know this. configure can figure this out for us, and 
the needed definition passed from the main Makefile to Mac/OSX/Makefile 
(assuming this will all stay in place for 2.4).

Could you file a bug report, please?
--
- 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 -