[Pythonmac-SIG] Dependencies for Python packages on OS-X

[William Kyngesburye]

On Apr 24, 2008, at 6:55 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:

>> Consistency is nice, especially on older systems that may have an  
>> old version where the changes include new features (as opposed to  
>> bug fixes).  PNG updates are mostly bug fixes these days, but  
>> include important security updates that would be nice to have  
>> (Apple may update the system PNG but not X11 PNG?).
>
> I'm confused -- are you suggesting that we use your Frameworks for  
> all this, even on newer apple systems that have them?
>
For Freetype, I guess it's just a preference - I prefer to leave X11  
on its own, if I'm not compiling an app that needs X11, I don't want  
to depend on anything else related to X11.  X11 is still optional on  
Leopard, even if it's a default install.  I'm not sure about Leopard  
Server, if it's default or not (X11 doesn't make much sense on Server).

Also, since libjpeg is needed on both, and the UnixImageIO framework  
includes the other image libs, might as well use them.

>>> William, what do you think of my idea of trying to get  
>>> distributors to standardize on your Frameworks?
>>>
>> Thanks.  That was generally the idea, but I'm not a very proactive  
>> person ;)
>
> OK, so I'll keep pressing the point, but who knows? It really will  
> only work if it's widely adopted.
>
I did get a lot of people saying hi at the OSGeo conference last fall,  
that used my stuff on Macs for web development.

> I suggested something like this a while back, but didn't get much  
> support. It's not really python, after all. But I think we could get  
> them put up on pythonmac.org/packages, right along with the python  
> install, and all the packages.
>
Or links, otherwise I or someone would have to keep them in sync with  
my updates.

>> a Tiger/Leopard installer package can easily be made to do so.
>
> yup. I figured that would work, and I don't think there would be any  
> problem if, for instance, the matplotlib and PIL installers both had  
> copies of the same UnixImageIO framework, would it?
>
No problem, that's what I meant - the installer can test if a  
compatible framework version is installed to decide if it needs to  
install its own bundled copy.

> can't the newer version and older version live side by side?
>
Major versions can.  Each has its own subfolder in the Versions  
folder.  But updates within the major version overwrite the binaries.   
Framework versioning is really separate from library versioning.   
Apple uses the A, B, C... versioning, and you can have major library  
version changes within the same framework version (most of Apple's  
frameworks are still "A" versions, though the library versions in some  
have gone thru major updates).

I went with using the actual library versions as the framework  
version, at the major.minor level.  Except the UnixImageIO framework  
where there are multiple libraries and thus multiple versions.  I  
could have used just the major version, but with some libraries (like  
GDAL) the minor version is more like a major version.

> Anyway, I've almost got PIL tested, maybe you could make an  
> installer from it with the frameworks it needs?
>
I don't know if there is some script (maybe even an option of  
distutils?) the packagers use to make the installers, or maybe a  
template.  If so it would be best to add the framework stuff that I  
come up with to that.

-----
William Kyngesburye <kyngchaos*at*kyngchaos*dot*com>
http://www.kyngchaos.com/

"History is an illusion caused by the passage of time, and time is an  
illusion caused by the passage of history."

- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy