On Jan 6, 2005, at 14:59, Ronald Oussoren wrote: > > On 6-jan-05, at 14:04, Jack Jansen wrote: > >> >> On 6 Jan 2005, at 00:49, Martin v. Löwis wrote: >>>> The "new" solution is basically to go back to the Unix way of >>>> building an extension: link it against nothing and sort things out >>>> at runtime. Not my personal preference, but at least we know that >>>> loading an extension into one Python won't bring in a fresh copy >>>> of a different interpreter or anything horrible like that. >>> >>> This sounds good, except that it only works on OS X 10.3, right? >>> What about older versions? >> >> 10.3 or later. For older OSX releases (either because you build >> Python on 10.2 or earlier, or because you've set >> MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET to a value of 10.2 or less) we use the old >> behaviour of linking with "-framework Python". > > Wouldn't it be better to link with the actual dylib inside the > framework on 10.2? Otherwise you can no longer build 2.3 extensions > after you've installed 2.4. It would certainly be better to do this for 10.2. -bob
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