Re: [Visualpython-users] Python 2.5

[Bruce S. <Bru...@nc...>]

I agree that it is a priority to be able to run Visual 3 on Python 2.5.

I'm guessing that the quickest way to do that would be to comment out 
references in Visual to Numeric (which isn't available for Python 2.5 
but is required to be present for Visual to build, at least on Windows) 
and go with NumArray (which should work with Visual, even though I just 
discovered that it doesn't seem to). However, this is a less desirable 
path than replacing both Numeric and NumArray with the new NumPy.

This assumes that the amount of work required to make a stable Visual 4 
with NumPy will take significantly more time than making a stable Visual 
3 with NumPy.

For the information of those interested in working on Visual, using 
source code from sourceforge.net: The files HACKING.txt and INSTALL.txt 
contain instructions on what tools you need to have on your computer in 
order to be able to build from source, and instructions on how to use 
those tools. If you have questions, feel free to ask.

Individual files in the project typically have pretty good commentary, 
but there isn't an overview document that explains how the pieces go 
together, which together with the complexity of Visual does make it 
difficult to get started.

Bruce

Arthur Siegel wrote:

>On Sun, 2006-10-08 at 10:05 -0400, Arthur Siegel wrote:
>
>  
>
>>So that maybe the short-term focus should
>>be shifted there.  I am concerned about the perception regarding VPython
>>should there be a significant delay in making Python2.5 binaries
>>available, now that Python2.5 is itself final.
>>    
>>
>
>to add -
>
>IMO, binaries for Python2.5 against the stable 3.xxx branch should be
>maintained and made available until such time as the known bugs against
>the 4.xxx branch get sorted out.
>
>Among other reasons, it is my perception that the Debian folks are quite
>conservative about what they package/support so that an official Debian
>distro against 3.xxx and Python2.5 is a more feasible request than one
>against 4.xxx.
>
>
>Art
>
>  
>