Fredrik Lundh wrote: > > James C. Ahlstrom <jim@interet.com> wrote: > > IMHO putting shared libs in an archive is a bad idea because the OS Dear Fredrik, I thought the point of Python-Dev was to propose designs and get feedback, right? Well, I got feedback :-). OK, I agree to alter my archive format so it provides the ability to store shared libs and not just *.pyd. I will add the string length and if needed a flag indicating the name is a shared lib. Now the details: > have you tried it? if not, why do you think you should > be allowed to forbid others from doing it? Yes I have tried it, and I am currently on my fourth version of an archive format which is based on formats by Greg Stein and Gordon McMillan. I hope it meets with the favor of the Grand Inquisition, and becomes the standard format. But maybe it won't. Oh well. > bloody installers. and here you are advocating that > we all should be forced to use installers, when python > makes it trivial to write self-installing apps. double-argh! I am not forcing anyone to do anything, only proposing that shared libs are best handled directly by imputil and not the class within imputil which handles archive files. It is just a geeky design issue, nothing more. JimA
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4