On Jan 6, 2005, at 15:03, Bob Ippolito wrote: > > 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. This patch implements the proposed direct framework linking: http://python.org/sf/1097739 -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