On 10/25/2014 5:11 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: > It might fragment the community to have multiple different binary > distributions. But it ought to be possible for any person/organization > to say "We're going to make our own build of Python, with these > extension modules, built with this compiler, targeting this platform", > and do everything from source. That might mean they can no longer take > the short-cut of "download someone's MSVC-built extension and use it > as-is", but they should be able to take anyone's extension and build > it on their chosen compiler. Having MinGW as a formally supported > platform would make life a lot easier for people who want to test > CPython patches, for instance - my building and testing of PEP > 463-enhanced Python was Linux-only, because I didn't want to try to > set up an entire new buildchain just to try to get a Windows binary > going. There's absolutely no need for that to be binary-compatible > with anything else; as long as it'll run the standard library, it'll > do. David Murray's unanswered post laid out the path to move in the direction you want. Either take it yourself or try to persuade other MinGW fans to do so. -- Terry Jan Reedy
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