"Tim Peters" <tim.one at comcast.net> writes: > [Thomas Heller] >> Before I'd like some questions to be answered, probably Martin or Tim >> have an opinion here (but others are also invited). >> >> First, I hope that it's ok to build the installer with the VC6 SP5 >> dlls. > > I have in the past <wink>. It's OK by me. The Wise script should already > be refusing to replace newer versions of these DLLs. > >> The other possibility that comes to mind is to not include >> *any* MS runtime dlls, and provide the MS package VCREDIST.EXE >> separately. > > Martin pointed out correctly that Win95 didn't ship with these things, so > it's safest to keep shipping them until Python moves to VC7 (at which point > I don't think we can pretend to support Win9x anymore). > >> Second, what about the filename / version number / build number? > > The build number should definitely change. When someone sends a snippet > from an interactive prompt with an incomprehensible error report, the build > number they're unwittingly tricked into including is the best clue about > what they're really running. The version number shouldn't change. Too late. Anthony already published on creosote what I sent him. With the exception of the MS dlls, the installer contains and installs the exactly identical files as Python-2.3.2.exe, and this includes the build number since I did not rebuild Python itself. >> 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. > > +1. Python-2.3.2-1.exe is it now. Thomas
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