[Python-Dev] The other Py2.4 issue (original) (raw)

Paul Moore p.f.moore at gmail.com
Sun Dec 12 18:26:49 CET 2004

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 19:57:55 +0100, Christian Tismer <tismer at stackless.com> wrote:

Armin Rigo wrote:

> Hum, this is getting into a Linux-vs-Windows argument. I don't want to invest > time and money on Windows tools just to compile my extension module for > Windows users...

First of all, I'm assuming this is a timing issue. If I understood your initial posting, your concern was that people wanted Windows build of your extension now, and it was going to take you time to make it available.

That's a different issue from you not having the facilities to build the Windows installers at all, where you rely on 3rd parties making builds available.

As Martin points out, ultimately the provision of Windows binaries is an issue for the extension project - is the demand high enough to justify the effort, can you find tools and/or a helper, etc etc.

But the former issue (how quickly you can provide binaries, assuming that you will do so ultimately) is more relevant for python-dev. Specifically, because lack of binary extensions can be a barrier to take-up of the new version. Certainly, in the past, you could pretty much guarantee that there would be very few Windows users testing beta releases, because pywin32 binaries weren't available. With 2.4, I have at least one system I'd upgrade now but for the lack of a critical extension in binary form (I haven't yet had the time to try to adapt the build process to mingw for myself).

Maybe we can set this up as a service?

That sounds like a good idea. What I'd suggest is needed is a website where the following can take place:

  1. People have a way of posting rquests for particular modules.
  2. Installers can be uploaded to satisfy those requests.
  3. There is somewhere to put step-by-step "build it yourself" instructions, using free components, so that people without access to VS.NET can make progress themselves. Obviously, if a particular extension can't be built with free compilers, then binaries or access to VS.NET are the only options.

The installers should be clearly noted as having no warranty or support implied, to encourage people to offer binaries they have built without feeling that they are taking on a support burden. Conversely, as soon as "official" binaries are available from the extension project, the binaries available here should be removed (and replaced with a link to the official site) to reinforce the "unofficial" nature of the binaries provided here.

The biggest potential issue with such a site is clearly validation. I've no idea how to make something like this work without it being a major virus risk. Which may, sadly, be enough to kill the idea :-(

Paul.

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list