RetroSearch Browse

Wed Oct 15 12:16:28 EDT 2003 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2003-October/038758.html

On Wednesday 15 October 2003 5:07 pm, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > The other possibility that comes to mind is to not include *any* MS
> > runtime dlls, and provide the MS package VCREDIST.EXE separately.
>
> This sounds like a bad idea; all previous installers have included the
> right DLLs and not gotten any problems.
>
> > Second, what about the filename / version number / build number?
> >
> > IMO one should be able to distinguish the new installer from the old
> > one. The easiest thing would be to just change the filename into maybe
> > Python-2.3.2.1.exe.
>
> I can't think of anything better, so I think it's okay.  Adding a
> letter would be confusing because normally suffixes like b2 or c1 come
> *before* the final version.

I would suggest Python-2.3.2-1.exe which more strongly implies the same 
version of software but a different version of packaging.

Phil

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2003-October/038758.html below:

[Python-Dev] Python-2.3.2 windows binary screwed