* Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> [2002-10-04 20:18 -0400]: > > As per suggestion of Guido, I've submitted a patch. The patch, > > however, doesn't make any sense standalone, so it's part of #1 of > > many mingw related patches. > > So I should ignore the patch until you're done submitting those other > patches? No, this can go in now. That's the point of my plan to submit several isolated patches. I don't want to fork a Python tree, work several months on it, and then submit one gigantic patch, that will probably never be applied because there are problems reviewing it. > > These will ultimately make it possible to build Python on win32 using the > > autoconf/make toolchain. > > I don't understand. How many Unix emulations on Windows do we need? mingw is _not_ a Unix emulation. It is the GNU Compiler suite targetting _native_ Windows. The point is to be able to build Python on Windows with the autoconf toolchain. And _without_ needing to buy Visual C++ just to do build Python or to do serious Python extension development on Windows. > We've already absorbed a sheer endless set of patches to make it work on > CYGWIN. How does Mingw differ? mingw produces native win32 executables. No emulation whatsoever. > > See http://python.org/sf/618791 > > > > I've assigned it to Guido for no good reason except being not sure > > if Mark knows about autoconf/makesetup, which my patch touches. > > > > But I'd also be glad if anybody else applies it ;-) > > Me too. I may reduce the priority. The reason for setting a higher priority was that I hoped this could be applied rather sooner than later, as I hoped this wasn't a controversial patch. -- Gerhard
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