Re: [Pyobjc-dev] buildapplication strawman

[Jack J. <Jac...@cw...>]

On Wednesday, Nov 20, 2002, at 12:21 Europe/Amsterdam, tmk wrote:
> That said, I trust the fact that Jack may have very good reasons to 
> favor the framework install option instead. When you can spare the 
> time Jack inquiring minds want to know :-)

As I explained on the pythonmac-sig last month I'm not so sure anymore, 
I would like to keep both options open for python 2.3, and then we'll 
see which build catches on.

But when people thought I suggested doing away with framework builds 
completely (which I didn't) there was quite a bit of protest. MacCVS 
needs it, for using Python as its scripting language, and the Python 
OSA component needs it.

Note that a non-framework Python with a shared library seems like a 
solution for this it's really only a poor substitute. With a shared 
library approach your python installation cannot be moved around 
anymore (Python itself can handle this, by using its own argv[0] to 
locate the Lib folder, but embedding applications will always use the 
fixed fallback path). Especially if we want binary installers things 
shouldn't depend on a compile-time builtin pathname.
--
- Jack Jansen        <Jac...@or...>        
http://www.cwi.nl/~jack -
- If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma 
Goldman -