[Pythonmac-SIG] building non-Framework Python 2.4.1 on Tiger

[Gary Poster]

On May 4, 2005, at 7:30 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:

> On May 4, 2005, at 7:15 PM, Gary Poster wrote:
>> On May 4, 2005, at 3:29 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>>> I'm not really sure why you're trying not to build a framework
>>> Python in the first place, there's no particularly good reason why
>>> you'd want a non-framework Python around.
>> I'm a Zope developer.  I often have multiple Pythons around, one (or
>> sometimes more) for each large project.  Framework builds help
>> nothing for Zope, and friends have scared me off from using them
>> except to replace the main Apple Python (which I just did sucessfully
>> with your MacPython and TigerPython24Fix--thanks!).  Maybe that's
>> misplaced fear, but working among developers on other platforms, its
>> (mildly) convenient if our buildouts all use the same buildout dance.
>
> Well, you don't build your own on Windows, do you?

Yes, we do (see below).

> I don't see why you should have to build one on your Mac either.   
> Framework builds are almost entirely self-contained (except for  
> the /usr/local/bin symlinks), similar to a typical Windows install.
>
> In other words, why should you need to build Python 2.4.1 when  
> there is already one built and available?  I could understand if  
> you were working off of some modified Python or off CVS HEAD or  
> something.. but it seems like you're spending more time than you  
> should have to.

We need to be able to develop on/support multiple pieces of software,  
running on multiple versions of Python, with different packages  
possibly in their own multiple versions.  We also don't want to make  
a developer munge their system Python with requirements for a given  
buildout.

For simpler cases, I agree with you.

> As far as friends scaring you off.. I dunno, maybe they didn't know  
> what they were doing when they tried it, or they were bitten by  
> some problem that has been solved long since.  The only  
> "incompatibility" with framework builds is that stupid extensions  
> that don't use distutils in their build procedure aren't going to  
> work out of the box, but they're probably not going to work out of  
> the box anyway because Mac OS X's linker takes different options.

I wonder if this is what is biting me now (other post about  
libxml2).  The odd thing is that it works when started one way (to  
run the tests) but not the other (to run the app).  ...Not a good  
sign for our test runner either, I suppose.

Gary