> Neither. Let me explain: I *don't* care about RPM and Debian packages, nor > about windows installers. Those who create such packages have time on > their hands, and usually a pretty good Python and C knowledge. What I do > care about, is that when building a complete Python interpreter from > source on a UNIX system, one has the option of downloading the sumo > package, type "./configure;make;make install", drink a cup of coffee, and > have a Python installation which does what he needs. > > Take me, for example. I've decided to write a GUI in Python, and I need to > -- download Tcl 8.0 (because that's what Python 1.5.2 works with), and > compile it > -- download Tk 8.0 and compile it > -- Edit the Modules/Setup file to point to my Tcl/Tk installation > -- Compile Python > > Now, if I find out later (as I have) that PIL would make my life easier, > I need to download PIL, edit *it* so it builds against my Tcl/Tk, and > install it. (Eventually, I decided to go without PIL because I don't have > the time) > > Then I want to prototype some XML manipulation in Python. So I have to > find out where expat lives, compile it, and only then I can get PyExpat > to work. > > Now, if I were using Debian, I'd simply spend some quality time with > apt-get and get over this. But I'm using Solaris, and later I might need > to port to AIX. So I'm using source distributions, and it is simply > painful. Bah, Solaris. Who still uses that old crap? :-) Or you could wait for ActivePython, which promises a binary distribution of Python 2.0 for Solaris. http://www.activestate.com/Products/ActivePython.html --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://dinsdale.python.org/~guido/)
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