[EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

221 views
Skip to first unread message

Ilias Lazaridis

unread,
Feb 13, 2005, 1:41:59 PM2/13/05
to
I'm a newcomer to python:

[EVALUATION] - E01: The Java Failure - May Python Helps?
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/msg/75f0c5c35374f553

-

I've download (as suggested) the python 2.4 installer for windows.

Now I have problems to compile python extension that some packages
depend on.

I use the MinGW open-source compiler.

-

My questions:

a) Why does the Python Foundation not provide additionally a binary
version, compiled with MinGW or another open-source compiler?

b) Why does the Python Foundation not ensure, that the python
source-code is directly compilable with MinGW?

c) Why are the following efforts not _directly_ included in the python
source code base?

http://jove.prohosting.com/iwave/ipython/pyMinGW.html

above link found in this thread:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/msg/c9f0444c467de525

d) Is it really neccessary that I dive into such adventures, to be able
to do the most natural thing like: "developing python extensions with
MinGW"?

http://starship.python.net/crew/kernr/mingw32/Notes.html

e) Is there any official statement available regarding the msvcr71.dll
and other MS licensing issues?

[see several threads "[Python-Dev] Is msvcr71.dll re-redistributable?"]

http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-February/thread.html

f) Are there any official (Python Foundation) statements / rationales
available, which explain why the MinGW compiler is unsupported, although
parts of the community obviously like to use it?

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/msg/dc3474e6c8053336

-

I just want to understand.

Thankfull for any pointer to official documents / statements.

[google is _not_ a fried here. I like to have a stable development
environment, which is supported by the official projects, thus it can
pass quality-assurance without beeing afraid about every next release.]

.

--
http://lazaridis.com

Michael Hoffman

unread,
Feb 13, 2005, 9:24:06 PM2/13/05
to
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

> a) Why does the Python Foundation not provide additionally a binary
> version, compiled with MinGW or another open-source compiler?

I use a binary version of Python compiled with an open-source compiler
on Windows that was provided by someone else.

> b) Why does the Python Foundation not ensure, that the python
> source-code is directly compilable with MinGW?

Why should they? It already runs on Windows with a freely available
compiler.

> f) Are there any official (Python Foundation) statements / rationales
> available, which explain why the MinGW compiler is unsupported, although
> parts of the community obviously like to use it?

Not to my knowledge. But I would guess because supporting it would
obviously be a lot of work and the core developers have other things to
do they consider more important. They are volunteers, you know.

Why don't you solve this problem and produce a patched version of
Python that does what you want.

> [google is _not_ a fried here. I like to have a stable development
> environment, which is supported by the official projects, thus it can
> pass quality-assurance without beeing afraid about every next release.]

Then you have several options:

a) use a supported development environment
b) do the work yourself to support MinGW
c) pay someone else to do the work

But don't act like the volunteers who develop Python owe you a version
of Python that runs out of the box on MinGW. They don't, anymore than you
owe *me* a version of Python that runs out of the box on MinGW.

Now why haven't *you* produced a version of Python that is directly
compileable with MinGW? Time's a-wasting.
--
Michael Hoffman

Miki Tebeka

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 2:19:56 AM2/14/05
to Ilias Lazaridis, pytho...@python.org
Hello Ilias,

> d) Is it really neccessary that I dive into such adventures, to be able
> to do the most natural thing like: "developing python extensions with
> MinGW"?

Writing a setup.py and running
python setup.py build_ext --compiler=mingw32
works for me *without* any more work. Things can't get much simpler.

Bye.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miki Tebeka <miki....@zoran.com>
http://tebeka.bizhat.com
The only difference between children and adults is the price of the toys

Fuzzyman

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 3:41:31 AM2/14/05
to

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
> I'm a newcomer to python:
>
> [EVALUATION] - E01: The Java Failure - May Python Helps?
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/msg/75f0c5c35374f553
>
> -
>
> I've download (as suggested) the python 2.4 installer for windows.
>
> Now I have problems to compile python extension that some packages
> depend on.
>
> I use the MinGW open-source compiler.
>
> -
>
> My questions:
>
> a) Why does the Python Foundation not provide additionally a binary
> version, compiled with MinGW or another open-source compiler?
>

It's not necessary.

> b) Why does the Python Foundation not ensure, that the python
> source-code is directly compilable with MinGW?
>

Are you sure it isn't ?

> c) Why are the following efforts not _directly_ included in the
python
> source code base?
>
> http://jove.prohosting.com/iwave/ipython/pyMinGW.html
>
> above link found in this thread:
>
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/msg/c9f0444c467de525
>
> d) Is it really neccessary that I dive into such adventures, to be
able
> to do the most natural thing like: "developing python extensions with

> MinGW"?
>
> http://starship.python.net/crew/kernr/mingw32/Notes.html
>

Not very difficult. The mingw compiler *is* supported through
distutils. distutils can straightforwardly be configured to build
extensions with mingw. The relevent lib files need converting, which is
also simple.

I did it for Python 2.3. For Python 2.4 I use the free MS optimimizing
compiler. That does need a bit of hacking into distutils, but gain -
not very difficult.

Regards,

Fuzzy
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/index.shtml

Ilias Lazaridis

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 4:17:28 AM2/14/05
to
Michael Hoffman wrote:
> Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
>
>> a) Why does the Python Foundation not provide additionally a binary
>> version, compiled with MinGW or another open-source compiler?
>
> I use a binary version of Python compiled with an open-source
> compiler on Windows that was provided by someone else.

Can you please point me (and the readers) to this resource?

>> b) Why does the Python Foundation not ensure, that the python
>> source-code is directly compilable with MinGW?
>
> Why should they? It already runs on Windows with a freely available
> compiler.

Obvious: Courtesy [against the userbase needs]

Obvious: Consistency [same code-base across different compiler]

>> f) Are there any official (Python Foundation) statements /
>> rationales available, which explain why the MinGW compiler is
>> unsupported, although parts of the community obviously like to use
>> it?
>
> Not to my knowledge.

[...] - (guess & comments)

thank you.

> Why don't you solve this problem and produce a patched version of
> Python that does what you want.

I'm not intrested in patching.

I'm intrested in a stable environment, supported by the original
implementors.

I need a solid fundament for my development.

>> [google is _not_ a fried here. I like to have a stable development
>> environment, which is supported by the official projects, thus it
>> can pass quality-assurance without beeing afraid about every next
>> release.]
>
> Then you have several options:
>
> a) use a supported development environment

Requirement: "full open-source tool-chain".

> b) do the work yourself to support MinGW

this would be not neccessary, as others do this work already.

My question (that you've ommited) was: why does the python foundation
not include this efforts?

[REQUOTE]


>> c) Why are the following efforts not _directly_ included in the
>> python source code base?
>>
>> http://jove.prohosting.com/iwave/ipython/pyMinGW.html
>>
>> above link found in this thread:
>>
>> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/msg/c9f0444c467de525
>>

[/REQUOTE]

> c) pay someone else to do the work
>
> But don't act like the volunteers who develop Python owe you a
> version of Python that runs out of the box on MinGW. They don't,
> anymore than you owe *me* a version of Python that runs out of the
> box on MinGW.

I think Python is a serious Open Source System, driven by the Python
Foundation.

Serious Open Source Systems should serve the basic needs of their
community, especially if there are many depending systems.

If it is a programming language, the requirement "using an open-source
toolchain" is a rational and valid one.

The Python Foundation ingores this requirement, this way creating a
chain of neccessary manual uncontrolled actions.

This does not increase my trust in python [e.g. as an exchange for JAVA].

> Now why haven't *you* produced a version of Python that is directly
> compileable with MinGW? Time's a-wasting.

I have stated already that I am a newcomer to python.

[you should really avoid this tenor. Python is not an open-source
project of a few teenies. It's a serious programming-language, which
could be adopted by e.g. more phone-manufacturers (after Nokia)]

-

The Python Foundation could create an official sub-project to create an
automated build target based on the MinGW toolchain. I am sure that many
community members would be more than happy to contribute.

.

--
http://lazaridis.com

Ilias Lazaridis

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 5:25:01 AM2/14/05
to
Fuzzyman wrote:
> Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
> [snip..]

>
>>>>b) Why does the Python Foundation not ensure, that the python
>>>>source-code is directly compilable with MinGW?
>>>
>>>Why should they? It already runs on Windows with a freely available
>>>compiler.
>>
>>Obvious: Courtesy [against the userbase needs]
>>
>>Obvious: Consistency [same code-base across different compiler]
>
> Are you aware that the MSVC compiler they use produces tighter code
> than gcc ? [1] *Most* users would rather have a faster python than a
> python built with an open source compiler.
> Particularly as distutils (read Python) can *easily* be configured to
> use mingw to build extensions from source - which seems to be your real
> requirement.

This is not relevant.

The Python Foundation should just ensure, that the source-code-base is
compilable with MinGW on windows, too.

This is a very natural requirement.

There is really no need to 'fight' against this.

There is just a need to cooperate to achieve this.

[...]
> [1] Not knocking gcc - it's just optimsied for portability rather than
> speed. If you want to see *a* benchmark, there is a link to one in my
> 'upgrading python' article. (In the article section at
> http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/index.shmtl )

.

--
http://lazaridis.com

David Fraser

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 5:08:48 AM2/14/05
to


Just to add to all the other answers:

Don't just complain, submit patches and work at keeping them maintained.
If this is done for a while it may be more of an argument for having
them included

David

Ilias Lazaridis

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 5:31:47 AM2/14/05
to
Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
> Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
>
>> I want to develope large scale applications, and for this I need an
>> stable official version of the python language, either binary or
>> produced directly out of official sources, completely with an
>> open-source tool-chain.
>
> Where does that requirement come from? If you want to create large
> scale apps, the price for a msvc++ compiler shouldn't matter. And:
> Windows is a non-free platform at first. If you have to or want to
> develop on top of it, be prepared to pay. Its as simple as that. If
> you want something cheaper - you'll have to put some effort into it.
> Or use linux.

I will not go into this 'twisting' games.

the requirement "Use of an open-source tool-chain" is nothing special.

> Additionally, your point is moot because there is no need for python
> _core_ developers or the foundation to support every imaginable
> platform/compiler combination.

MinGW is not "every imaginable platform/compliler".

> Instead this can be done by companies - see activestate. So if you
> want it, step up and do it yourself so your work _becomes_ the
> official mingw port. Community gratitude would be guaranteed.

I'm not intrested in creating an distribution.

I provide an analysis of the situation, context: newcomer, disapointed
from JAVA.

One of my questions is:

[REQUOTE]


>> c) Why are the following efforts not _directly_ included in the
>> python source code base?
>>
>> http://jove.prohosting.com/iwave/ipython/pyMinGW.html

[/REQUOTE]

.

--
http://lazaridis.com

Fuzzyman

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 4:44:34 AM2/14/05
to

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
[snip..]

> >> b) Why does the Python Foundation not ensure, that the python
> >> source-code is directly compilable with MinGW?
> >
> > Why should they? It already runs on Windows with a freely available

> > compiler.
>
> Obvious: Courtesy [against the userbase needs]
>
> Obvious: Consistency [same code-base across different compiler]
>

Are you aware that the MSVC compiler they use produces tighter code


than gcc ? [1] *Most* users would rather have a faster python than a
python built with an open source compiler.

Particularly as distutils (read Python) can *easily* be configured to
use mingw to build extensions from source - which seems to be your real
requirement.

Regards,

Fuzzy
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/index.shmtl

[snip..]
> --
> http://lazaridis.com

Robert Kern

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 5:46:09 AM2/14/05
to
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
> David Fraser wrote:
>
>> Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
>
> [...]

>
>> Just to add to all the other answers:
>>
>> Don't just complain, submit patches and work at keeping them
>> maintained. If this is done for a while it may be more of an argument
>> for having them included
>
>
> I do not "just complain".
>
> I've spend already hours with writing down the questionaire [which you
> have successfully ignored].

Why don't you spend hours writing code and submitting working patches,
instead? That's what I did years ago in the original effort to get mingw
to compile Python extensions (one of the, woefully out-dated, web-pages
you cite is mine. I have now edited it to clarify the situation so
others do not come away from it as you did).

Just writing "questionnaires" *is* actually "just complaining."

The answer to most of your questions is, "Because no one has yet
volunteered their time and effort to get the job done."

If this is important to you, you need to step up yourself and get it
done and not expect other people to volunteer their unpaid time to
satisfy your whims.

The open source Python community is driven by volunteerism, not a sense
of entitlement. If this does not appeal to you, then perhaps the Python
community is not the right one for you.

--
Robert Kern
rk...@ucsd.edu

"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
-- Richard Harter

Michael Hoffman

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 4:54:17 AM2/14/05
to
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

> "The Python Foundation could create an official sub-project to create an
> automated build target based on the MinGW toolchain. I am sure that many
> community members would be more than happy to contribute."

An "official sub-project" for something like this is not necessary. Identify
what needs to be done and create a patch, and it will be accepted if it is
a good patch.
--
Michael Hoffman

Michael Hoffman

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 4:46:12 AM2/14/05
to
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

> Michael Hoffman wrote:
>
> Can you please point me (and the readers) to this resource?

http://www.cygwin.com/

>> Why don't you solve this problem and produce a patched version of
>> Python that does what you want.
>
> I'm not intrested in patching.
>
> I'm intrested in a stable environment, supported by the original
> implementors.

And the core developers are not interested in doing more than what they
have already done without further help (e.g. from you). Surely you can
"not interested" as you have justified your own inaction through it.

> This does not increase my trust in python [e.g. as an exchange for JAVA].

You cannot run all Java programs on an open source compiler, so I guess
it's an imperfect world for you. And to get GCJ to run on MinGW you have to
add a lot of patches.

>> Now why haven't *you* produced a version of Python that is directly
>> compileable with MinGW? Time's a-wasting.
>
> I have stated already that I am a newcomer to python.
>
> [you should really avoid this tenor.

And you should avoid yours. Your sense of entitlement is palpable.

> Python is not an open-source project of a few teenies. It's a serious
> programming-language, which could be adopted by e.g. more
> phone-manufacturers (after Nokia)]

The idea that MinGW support would affect that is laughable.
--
Michael Hoffman

Ilias Lazaridis

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 5:48:51 AM2/14/05
to
Michael Hoffman wrote:
> Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
>
>> Michael Hoffman wrote:
>>
>> Can you please point me (and the readers) to this resource?
>
> http://www.cygwin.com/

thank you.

as far as I know, the created executables are bounded to the GPL.

Thus this is not intresting to me.

>>> Why don't you solve this problem and produce a patched version of
>>> Python that does what you want.
>>
>> I'm not intrested in patching.
>>
>> I'm intrested in a stable environment, supported by the original
>> implementors.
>

> And the core developers [...]

please let them speak for themselves.

>> This does not increase my trust in python [e.g. as an exchange for JAVA].
>
> You cannot run all Java programs on an open source compiler, so I guess
> it's an imperfect world for you. And to get GCJ to run on MinGW you have to
> add a lot of patches.

Python is from its nature open-source.

The requirement "open-source-tool-chain" fits naturally.

>>> Now why haven't *you* produced a version of Python that is directly
>>> compileable with MinGW? Time's a-wasting.
>>
>> I have stated already that I am a newcomer to python.
>>
>> [you should really avoid this tenor.
>
> And you should avoid yours. Your sense of entitlement is palpable.

Entitlements result out of reason.

I'm just pointing out.

I've stated simple questions [which are still unanswered]

And I've stated rationales.

>> Python is not an open-source project of a few teenies. It's a serious
>> programming-language, which could be adopted by e.g. more
>> phone-manufacturers (after Nokia)]
>
> The idea that MinGW support would affect that is laughable.

The idea that the Python Foundation cares about user needs would affect
that.

The idea that the Python Foundation manages to serve (out of one
source-code-base) many platforms/compilers with binaries, due to an
automated, community-supported build system.

This would affect that.

.

--
http://lazaridis.com

Diez B. Roggisch

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 5:22:17 AM2/14/05
to
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

> [please check your news-client. For some reason, the tag "[EVALUATION]"
> was removed]


>
> I want to develope large scale applications, and for this I need an
> stable official version of the python language, either binary or
> produced directly out of official sources, completely with an
> open-source tool-chain.

Where does that requirement come from? If you want to create large scale
apps, the price for a msvc++ compiler shouldn't matter. And: Windows is a
non-free platform at first. If you have to or want to develop on top of it,
be prepared to pay. Its as simple as that. If you want something cheaper -
you'll have to put some effort into it. Or use linux.

Additionally, your point is moot because there is no need for python _core_


developers or the foundation to support every imaginable platform/compiler

combination. Instead this can be done by companies - see activestate. So if


you want it, step up and do it yourself so your work _becomes_ the official
mingw port. Community gratitude would be guaranteed.

--
Regards,

Diez B. Roggisch

Ilias Lazaridis

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 5:58:10 AM2/14/05
to
Robert Kern wrote:
> Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
>> David Fraser wrote:
>>> Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
[...]
>>I do not "just complain".
>>
>> I've spend already hours with writing down the questionaire [which you
>> have successfully ignored].
>
> Why don't you spend hours writing code and submitting working patches,
> instead? That's what I did years ago in the original effort to get mingw
> to compile Python extensions (one of the, woefully out-dated, web-pages
> you cite is mine. I have now edited it to clarify the situation so
> others do not come away from it as you did).

"This page is extremely out-of-date. Not much applies anymore. This page
only remains because too many people still point to it. PExports may
also still be useful to some people; I don't know. I do not use this
platform any longer."
http://starship.python.net/crew/kernr/mingw32/Notes.html

very gentle.

up-to-date information is important, especially to avoid confusing
newcomers.

[you see: even if I just complain, one positive change has already happen]

> Just writing "questionnaires" *is* actually "just complaining."

of course not.

> The answer to most of your questions is, "Because no one has yet
> volunteered their time and effort to get the job done."

this answer do not fit in most questions.

please review them again.

> If this is important to you, you need to step up yourself and get it
> done and not expect other people to volunteer their unpaid time to
> satisfy your whims.
>
> The open source Python community is driven by volunteerism, not a sense
> of entitlement. If this does not appeal to you, then perhaps the Python
> community is not the right one for you.

I ask some questions and suggest some things.

Voluntarlily and without beeing paid.

There are many commercial systems around python.

So please stop this volunteerism-stuff.

-

If you like to help me and other newcomers, please give me simple some
answers on the initial questions.

.

--
http://lazaridis.com

Ilias Lazaridis

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 4:37:06 AM2/14/05
to
[please check your news-client. For some reason, the tag "[EVALUATION]"
was removed]

-

You answer essentially something like "It's not necessary" cause "with a
little hacking it works".

I've found lots of documents, which describe how to "hack around" to
make it work.

I don't want to do "hacking".

I want to develope large scale applications, and for this I need an
stable official version of the python language, either binary or
produced directly out of official sources, completely with an
open-source tool-chain.

That's the reason for my very specific questions, which you have mostly
ignored.

-

copied from another answer:

"The Python Foundation could create an official sub-project to create an
automated build target based on the MinGW toolchain. I am sure that many
community members would be more than happy to contribute."

.

--
http://lazaridis.com

Ilias Lazaridis

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 5:38:23 AM2/14/05
to
Michael Hoffman wrote:
> Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
>
>> "The Python Foundation could create an official sub-project to create
>> an automated build target based on the MinGW toolchain. I am sure that
>> many community members would be more than happy to contribute."
>
> An "official sub-project" for something like this is not necessary.

It is.

I hope the officials from the Python Foundation detect that:

* source code should be _directly_ compilable under major compilers.
* community efforts for such a important functionality should be
channelized and organized

> Identify
> what needs to be done and create a patch, and it will be accepted if it is
> a good patch.

[REQUOTE]


>> c) Why are the following efforts not _directly_ included in the
>> python source code base?
>>
>> http://jove.prohosting.com/iwave/ipython/pyMinGW.html

Michael Hoffman

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 5:54:44 AM2/14/05
to
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
> [REQUOTE]

Oh, I can play that game too:

>> [REQUOTE]


>> Identify what needs to be done and create a patch, and it will be
>> accepted if it is a good patch.

MinGW patches have been accepted before. Start submitting yours. As
you point out, there is stuff on the web that means you will escape the
bulk of the work. But not all of the work.

Since you are intent on whining rather than doing the work I'm
ignoring this thread now. Good luck.
--
Michael Hoffman

Ilias Lazaridis

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 5:33:16 AM2/14/05
to
David Fraser wrote:
> Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
[...]
> Just to add to all the other answers:
>
> Don't just complain, submit patches and work at keeping them maintained.
> If this is done for a while it may be more of an argument for having
> them included

I do not "just complain".

I've spend already hours with writing down the questionaire [which you
have successfully ignored].

.

--
http://lazaridis.com

Ilias Lazaridis

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 4:53:30 AM2/14/05
to
Miki Tebeka wrote:
> Hello Ilias,
>
>>d) Is it really neccessary that I dive into such adventures, to be able
>>to do the most natural thing like: "developing python extensions with
>>MinGW"?
>
> Writing a setup.py and running
> python setup.py build_ext --compiler=mingw32
> works for me *without* any more work. Things can't get much simpler.

looks really simple.

-

but:

the central problem still exists:

"** For a Python which was built with Cygwin, all should work without
any of these following steps. **"
source:
http://www.python.org/doc/2.2.3/inst/non-ms-compilers.html#SECTION000312000000000000000

-

"the problem is that Python binary distributions for MS Windows do not
include import libraries for popular gcc based tools: cygwin and mingw32"
source: http://www.zope.org/Members/als/tips/win32_mingw_modules

-

the solutions is possibly (copied from another answer):

"The Python Foundation could create an official sub-project to create an
automated build target based on the MinGW toolchain. I am sure that many
community members would be more than happy to contribute."

.

--
http://lazaridis.com

Diez B. Roggisch

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 5:59:49 AM2/14/05
to
>> Where does that requirement come from? If you want to create large
>> scale apps, the price for a msvc++ compiler shouldn't matter. And:
>> Windows is a non-free platform at first. If you have to or want to
>> develop on top of it, be prepared to pay. Its as simple as that. If
>> you want something cheaper - you'll have to put some effort into it.
>> Or use linux.
>
> I will not go into this 'twisting' games.

Because it renders your point moot?

> the requirement "Use of an open-source tool-chain" is nothing special.

There is a OS-tool-chain supported on windows, cygwin.

> MinGW is not "every imaginable platform/compliler".

Certainly not - but its one more dependency on an otherwise perfectly
working platform. Now why should there be any need to introduce this
dependency, if not a wide communitity desire is behind it - which seems not
to be the case. And recently, MS released a free version of its compiler.
I'm not sure if that's working for python - but if not, I think it would be
the more important thing to support on _windows_.

> I'm not intrested in creating an distribution.

Obviously nobody else is.

>
> I provide an analysis of the situation, context: newcomer, disapointed
> from JAVA.

That doesn't belong here. You don't get points for not liking java. And
beside that: I don't like it too, but if I have to use it because my
requirements analysis shows that it is the tool for the job - I use it.
Hopefully with jython somewhere.

So if you find that missing mingw support renders python useless for you,
don't use it. But that would only be the case if you _actually_ create an
extension - something I personally haven't the need for. And I developed
quite large python apps.

>>> c) Why are the following efforts not _directly_ included in the
>>> python source code base?
>>>
>>> http://jove.prohosting.com/iwave/ipython/pyMinGW.html

Ask the author of the patch. We can't read minds here.

Fredrik Lundh

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 6:02:54 AM2/14/05
to pytho...@python.org
Ilias Lazaridis wrote

> The idea that the Python Foundation cares about user needs would affect that.

please let the users speak for themselves.

</F>

Duncan Booth

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 7:27:21 AM2/14/05
to
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

>> There is a OS-tool-chain supported on windows, cygwin.
>

> this depends on cygwin.dll, which is GPL licensed
>
> [or am I wrong?]

It is GPL licensed with an amendment which prevents the GPL spreading to
other open source software with which it is linked.

"In accordance with section 10 of the GPL, Red Hat, Inc. permits programs
whose sources are distributed under a license that complies with the Open
Source definition to be linked with libcygwin.a without libcygwin.a itself
causing the resulting program to be covered by the GNU GPL."

Ilias Lazaridis

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 6:57:02 AM2/14/05
to ab...@hotmail.com, il...@lazaridis.com
Hello,

there is a thread in comp.lang.python, and a poster suggested that I ask
you directly.

possibly you can answer the question c), at least from your side.

Did you ever try to submit the patches to the main-source-code base of
python?

Thank you for your pyMinGW work and your time.

-

Ilias Lazaridis

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 7:09:12 AM2/14/05
to
Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
>>>Where does that requirement come from? If you want to create large
>>>scale apps, the price for a msvc++ compiler shouldn't matter. And:
>>>Windows is a non-free platform at first. If you have to or want to
>>>develop on top of it, be prepared to pay. Its as simple as that. If
>>>you want something cheaper - you'll have to put some effort into it.
>>>Or use linux.
>>
>>I will not go into this 'twisting' games.
>
> Because it renders your point moot?

no, my requirement renders your 'twisting' 'moot'.

see next line.

>>the requirement "Use of an open-source tool-chain" is nothing special.
>
> There is a OS-tool-chain supported on windows, cygwin.

this depends on cygwin.dll, which is GPL licensed

[or am I wrong?]

additionally: i like to use MinGW.

>>MinGW is not "every imaginable platform/compliler".
>
> Certainly not - but its one more dependency on an otherwise perfectly

[...] - (twisting)

again twisting.

I have a simple requirement.

please do not ignore it.

>>I'm not intrested in creating an distribution.
>
> Obviously nobody else is.

Including the Python Foundation.

>>I provide an analysis of the situation, context: newcomer, disapointed
>>from JAVA.
>
> That doesn't belong here. You don't get points for not liking java.

[...] - (off topic)

[Python Foundation/Community can use this, to attract more users.
The analysis is not the main topic here.]

An essential requirement is the topic.

>>>>c) Why are the following efforts not _directly_ included in the
>>>>python source code base?
>>>>
>>>>http://jove.prohosting.com/iwave/ipython/pyMinGW.html
>
> Ask the author of the patch. We can't read minds here.

you are right, this can clarify at least the one side.

I've contacted him, see my post in the root of this thread.

.

--
http://lazaridis.com

jfj

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 4:23:03 PM2/14/05
to pytho...@python.org
Michael Hoffman wrote:

> Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

>> b) Why does the Python Foundation not ensure, that the python
>> source-code is directly compilable with MinGW?
>
>
> Why should they? It already runs on Windows with a freely available
> compiler.

The point is that the freely available compiler wouldn't be free if
it wasn't for gcc. Just for that I _believe_ python, being open source,
should support mingw as the default. But I *don't care* and I don't
mind, really ;)


jfj

Ilias Lazaridis

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 7:26:39 AM2/14/05
to
Robert Kern wrote:
> Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
>> Robert Kern wrote:
> [snip]

>
>>> The answer to most of your questions is, "Because no one has yet
>>> volunteered their time and effort to get the job done."
>>
>> this answer do not fit in most questions.
>>
>> please review them again.
>
> Against my better judgement, I have.
>
> It certainly fits a, b, and c. It also fits d if you place an implicit
> "Yes, " in front of the answer. 4/6. I stick with my assessment.

see below.

[...]


>> I ask some questions and suggest some things.
>>
>> Voluntarlily and without beeing paid.
>

> Questions and suggestions are don't count for much in this community.
> Code and well-written patches do.
>
> Stop wasting time on c.l.py and get to work! If you can't do that, then
> this is not the community you are looking for.

Please speak for yourself.

>> There are many commercial systems around python.
>

> And yet there is not one company that has someone devoted full-time to
> developing Python. Not even Guido.

Who's "Guido"?

> Most of core-Python development happens in people's spare, unpaid time.
>
> Volunteerism is the core of this community. Trust me.

even if:

Volunteerism does not exclude Professionalism.

>> So please stop this volunteerism-stuff.
>

> No. You are asking others to volunteer their time, or perhaps,
> alternately, the PSF and other businesses to volunteer their money to
> fund people's time to satisfy *your* wants. I am asking you to volunteer
> *your* time to satisfy *your* wants,

I'm already doing this.

> or alternately, stop writing questionnaires and bothering us.

Feel free to ignore the threads.

And please speak for yourself.

> Note that this reaction is pretty specific to you and not to other
> newcomers. Most newcomers do not carry around a sense of entitlement
> that could flatten a small village. Thus, they are treated with respect
> and helpfulness. We would appreciate it if you would emulate these
> people. On a purely pragmatic note, you have to admit that they are
> getting much better help than you are.

I get the help that I want.

>> If you like to help me and other newcomers, please give me simple some
>> answers on the initial questions.
>

> I did provide some answers. Please review them again.

Please have the gentleness [against me and the current/future readers]
to answer within the context of the original writings.

.

--
http://lazaridis.com

jfj

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 9:14:20 PM2/14/05
to pytho...@python.org
bruno modulix wrote:
> Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
>
>> I'm a newcomer to python:
>>
>> [EVALUATION] - E01: The Java Failure - May Python Helps?
>> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/msg/75f0c5c35374f553
>>
>
> My trollometer's beeping...
>

When person 'A' calls person 'B' a troll, these are the possibilities:

1. 'A' is indeed a troll

2. 'B' is the troll

3. both 'A' and 'B' are trolls

4. nobody is a troll. they're computer scientists passionate about their
ideas and they are trying to convince each other.

5. nobody is a troll and there is no trolling going on.

Now, it's rather common to accuse people of trolling these days.
The fact that Markus Wankus said that Ilias is a troll does not mean
that everybody should reply to him in that tone.
This is a one .vs many battle and it sucks.


gerald

Grant Edwards

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 10:37:39 AM2/14/05
to
On 2005-02-14, Ilias Lazaridis <il...@lazaridis.com> wrote:
> I have.
>
> I've review several threads,publications, actions etc., that show that
> the users have this need.

This is open source. You don't just order somebody else to do
what you want. You _do_ it and donate it to the community.

> please review the initial thread with care, i've pointed to
> some documents/thread.

So what? You want it, you do it.

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I'm in ATLANTIC CITY
at riding in a comfortable
visi.com ROLLING CHAIR...

Brian Beck

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 6:34:05 AM2/14/05
to
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
> this answer do not fit in most questions.
>
> please review them again.

Actually, it does. Please review them again.

> My questions:
>
> a) Why does the Python Foundation not provide additionally a binary version, compiled with MinGW or another open-source compiler?

Because no one has yet volunteered their time and effort to get the job
done.

> b) Why does the Python Foundation not ensure, that the python source-code is directly compilable with MinGW?

Because no one has yet volunteered their time and effort to get the job
done.

> c) Why are the following efforts not _directly_ included in the python source code base?

Because no one has yet volunteered their time and effort to get the job
done.

> d) Is it really neccessary that I dive into such adventures, to be able to do the most natural thing like: "developing python extensions with MinGW"?

Yes, because no one has yet volunteered their time and effort to get the
job done.

> f) Are there any official (Python Foundation) statements / rationales available, which explain why the MinGW compiler is unsupported, although parts of the community obviously like to use it?

The most likely response you will get is: Because no one has yet

volunteered their time and effort to get the job done.

> I ask some questions and suggest some things.


>
> Voluntarlily and without beeing paid.

What a martyr you are.

> There are many commercial systems around python.
>
> So please stop this volunteerism-stuff.

If the support you're looking for is beneficial to your commercial
application a.k.a. business, then why aren't you making it happen?
Obviously the existing commercial development teams are doing fine
without it, otherwise it would exist. Even then, a commercial developer
providing their development work to enhance the standard Python
distribution IS volunteering.

--
Brian Beck
Adventurer of the First Order

Stephen Kellett

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 9:50:42 AM2/14/05
to
Hi Robert,

>Note that this reaction is pretty specific to you and not to other
>newcomers.

I couldn't agree more. This guy is amazing, I think he is an AI or
nowhere near as bright as he thinks he is. Seems to get the same
reaction regardless of newsgroup or language. His reaction to the Ruby
crowd almost seemed incendiary - pretty much accused them of having a
lame language.

>Most newcomers do not carry around a sense of entitlement that could
>flatten a small village.

That has to rate as one of the funniest things I've read on usenet in
years.

Cheers

Stephen
--
Stephen Kellett
Object Media Limited http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk
RSI Information: http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk/rsi.html

Simon Brunning

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 8:23:20 AM2/14/05
to pytho...@python.org, bruno modulix
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:12:57 +0100, bruno modulix <on...@xiludom.gro> wrote:
>
> Why do you hate Perl and Ruby community that much ?

Oh, I don't. But fair's fair - we've carried our share of the burden, surely?

But-don't-get-me-started-on-those-Groovy-bastards-ly Y'rs,
Simon B,
si...@brunningonline.net,
http://www.brunningonline.net/simon/blog/

Diez B. Roggisch

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 7:38:47 AM2/14/05
to
> One of the most funny things within open-source is that switching:
>
> first:
> "we have powerfull solutions which beat this and that"
>
> then:
> "hey, this is just volunteer work"
>

I don't see the contradiction here. It beats a great deal of commercial
solutions in a lot of ways. But not on every single one of these. And the
_reason_ for beating commercial software in certain aspects is exactly that
somebody stood up and volunteered. Obviously you aren't interested in the
more labour-intensive parts of the os-development.

>
> But if those answers above were of official nature, I must seriously
> rethink if I can rely on _any_ system which is based on python, as the
> foundation and the community do not care about essential needs and
> requirements.

They might not care about _your_ perceived essential needs. But as lots of
people use python and python based solutions with great commercial success,
you might think of reviewing your needs more critical. After all, there is
no _perfect_ system for all needs.

Robert Kern

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 6:20:14 AM2/14/05
to
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
> Robert Kern wrote:

[snip]

>> The answer to most of your questions is, "Because no one has yet

>> volunteered their time and effort to get the job done."
>
>
> this answer do not fit in most questions.
>
> please review them again.

Against my better judgement, I have.

It certainly fits a, b, and c. It also fits d if you place an implicit
"Yes, " in front of the answer. 4/6. I stick with my assessment.

>> If this is important to you, you need to step up yourself and get it

>> done and not expect other people to volunteer their unpaid time to
>> satisfy your whims.
>>
>> The open source Python community is driven by volunteerism, not a
>> sense of entitlement. If this does not appeal to you, then perhaps the
>> Python community is not the right one for you.
>
>
> I ask some questions and suggest some things.
>
> Voluntarlily and without beeing paid.

Questions and suggestions are don't count for much in this community.

Code and well-written patches do.

Stop wasting time on c.l.py and get to work! If you can't do that, then
this is not the community you are looking for.

> There are many commercial systems around python.

And yet there is not one company that has someone devoted full-time to
developing Python. Not even Guido. Most of core-Python development

happens in people's spare, unpaid time.

Volunteerism is the core of this community. Trust me.

> So please stop this volunteerism-stuff.

No. You are asking others to volunteer their time, or perhaps,

alternately, the PSF and other businesses to volunteer their money to
fund people's time to satisfy *your* wants. I am asking you to volunteer

*your* time to satisfy *your* wants, or alternately, stop writing
questionnaires and bothering us.

Note that this reaction is pretty specific to you and not to other

newcomers. Most newcomers do not carry around a sense of entitlement
that could flatten a small village. Thus, they are treated with respect
and helpfulness. We would appreciate it if you would emulate these
people. On a purely pragmatic note, you have to admit that they are
getting much better help than you are.

> If you like to help me and other newcomers, please give me simple some

> answers on the initial questions.

I did provide some answers. Please review them again.

--

Simon Brunning

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 7:38:32 AM2/14/05
to pytho...@python.org, Ilias Lazaridis
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:23:08 +0200, Ilias Lazaridis <il...@lazaridis.com> wrote:

(snip)

> But if those answers above were of official nature, I must seriously
> rethink if I can rely on _any_ system which is based on python, as the
> foundation and the community do not care about essential needs and
> requirements.

I couldn't agree more. You need to find a community that *does* care
about essential needs. Might I recommend Perl or Ruby?

--
Cheers,

Stephen Kellett

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 9:47:06 AM2/14/05
to
In message <cuq084$r99$1...@usenet.otenet.gr>, Ilias Lazaridis
<il...@lazaridis.com> writes

>> The answer to most of your questions is, "Because no one has yet
>>volunteered their time and effort to get the job done."
>
>this answer do not fit in most questions.
>
>please review them again.

There you go. Failed the test. He is an AI. A human wouldn't make this
mistake.

Pat

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 11:20:11 AM2/14/05
to
Wow! I must say, I'm less than impressed with the responses so far. I
know Ilias can give the impression that he is just trolling, but I can
assure you he is not. At least, not in this case. ;-)

So in an effort to make some headway, I'm going to try to summarize the
current state of affairs. The bottom line is that compiling C
extension modules on the Windows platform for Python 2.4 is, today, a
royal pain in the ass. Period. Here's why.

The main challenge is that extensions must be compiled using the same
runtime dll as that used by the Python interpreter itself. The
official Windows binary installation of Python 2.3.5 and its
predecessors was compiled with one MS product, which was fairly easy to
support with minGW, but Python 2.4 was compiled with the newer .NET
compiler. Unfortunately, compiling extensions for Python 2.4 with the
free MS tools is not trivial, as evidenced by Mike Fletcher's very
thorough document on the subject:

Python 2.4 Extensions w/ the MS Toolkit Compiler

http://www.vrplumber.com/programming/mstoolkit/

In addition, there are some unresolved licensing questions concerning
the .NET runtime file for extensions (msvcr71.dll):

http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-February/051393.html

There have been extensive discussions about these issues on the
Python-Dev mailing list over the past couple of months (mostly in
December, but continuing to the present - see
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-December/thread.html
as a starting point), which seem to have fizzled out or at least
haven't resolved much. The discussions made reference to work that has
already been done to allow Python to be compiled with minGW:

pyMinGW is a patch to Python source that aims to get Python to compile
under MinGW

http://jove.prohosting.com/iwave/ipython/pyMinGW.html

I've not seen any commentary on the quality of this patch, so that
doesn't appear to be the reason it hasn't been officially adopted.
Reading all the threads from Python-Dev has not enlightened me at all
as to what the underlying reason is for not adopting these changes.
Maybe there are good reasons, I just couldn't find them, and I'm
usually pretty good with Google.

A few of you have mentioned that minGW is not an optimizing compiler on
the Windows platform, whereas the MS .NET one is. If anyone has
information on the performance differences, I'd really appreciate being
able to see it, particularly as it applies to Python 2.4.

Now, we get to the essence of my particular situation. I've got a
project that includes some Python extensions written in C. My users
(who are Python developers, but not necessarily hard-core types) need
to be able to work out of their local Subversion checkouts. This
includes locally compiling these extensions as necessary. I'd like
this to work with Python 2.4, and be as painless as possible on my
users. I can't expect them to purchase a .NET compiler or go through a
bunch of configuration changes. So far, I haven't figured out a good
way to support this. I'm open to suggestions. I suspect that my needs
are very similar to those of the original poster.

Perhaps the issue is in part a matter of minGW catching up with the new
MS compilers. My understanding of and experience with Python 2.3.5 and
its predecessors has been that Python itself didn't need to be
recompiled with minGW, since extensions compiled with minGW linked to
the same C runtime dll. So if minGW had support for msvcr71.dll then
maybe this problem goes away with Python 2.4 as well.

If anyone can shed any light on this situation, it would really help me
out. Thanks.

--
Patrick K. O'Brien
Orbtech http://www.orbtech.com
Schevo http://www.schevo.org
Pypersyst http://www.pypersyst.org

bruno modulix

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 8:14:28 AM2/14/05
to
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
> I'm a newcomer to python:
>
> [EVALUATION] - E01: The Java Failure - May Python Helps?
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/msg/75f0c5c35374f553
>

My trollometer's beeping...

--
bruno desthuilliers
python -c "print '@'.join(['.'.join([w[::-1] for w in p.split('.')]) for
p in 'on...@xiludom.gro'.split('@')])"

Stephen Kellett

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 9:58:17 AM2/14/05
to
In message <mailman.2530.1108387...@python.org>, Simon
Brunning <simon.b...@gmail.com> writes

>On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:12:57 +0100, bruno modulix <on...@xiludom.gro> wrote:
>>
>> Why do you hate Perl and Ruby community that much ?
>
>Oh, I don't. But fair's fair - we've carried our share of the burden, surely?

He is already badgering the Ruby guys. Without about as much success as
this newsgroup. When he doesn't get what he wants a post along the lines
of

"XXXX lang is only suited to small projects and not real world
industrial projects"
or
"the community doesn't care"
will appear.

Its quite incredible - in the time he has spent complaining he could
have done his own research and written some useful tools. I know how
long it took me to write my first major C++ app that interfaced with
Python and Ruby. It was less time than he has spent complaining - and
that included rebuilding Python/Ruby, inspecting the source for what I
needed and performing many experiments before I succeeded.

Stephen Kellett

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 10:48:32 AM2/14/05
to
In message <RXU7YhRC...@objmedia.demon.co.uk>, Stephen Kellett
<sn...@objmedia.demon.co.uk> writes
>Hi Robert,

Weird, you hit "reply" and the newsreader does a "post". C'est la vie.

Ilias Lazaridis

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 6:24:47 AM2/14/05
to
Michael Hoffman wrote:
> Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
>
>> [REQUOTE]
> Oh, I can play that game too:
>
>>> [REQUOTE]
>>> Identify what needs to be done and create a patch, and it will be
>>> accepted if it is a good patch.

"


c) Why are the following efforts not _directly_ included in the python
source code base?

http://jove.prohosting.com/iwave/ipython/pyMinGW.html
"

> MinGW patches have been accepted before.

ok

I extract the answer to c)

"MinGW pathces have been accepted before, thus the efforts should be
simply sent in form of patches to the python crew, which will most
possibly accept them, as they are neccessary to compile python under the
popular MinGW compiler"

> Start submitting yours.

I don't have

> As
> you point out, there is stuff on the web that means you will escape the
> bulk of the work. But not all of the work.

If the Python Foundation detects the importancy, _every_ user will
escape the 'bulk of the work', as it should be for a serious development.

There is no need that everyone runs in the same traps, due to some
missing organization in the core-project.

> Since you are intent on whining rather than doing the work I'm
> ignoring this thread now. Good luck.

Thank you for your answers and your time.

.

--
http://lazaridis.com

Diez B. Roggisch

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 11:19:29 AM2/14/05
to
> Now, it's rather common to accuse people of trolling these days.
> The fact that Markus Wankus said that Ilias is a troll does not mean
> that everybody should reply to him in that tone.
> This is a one .vs many battle and it sucks.

Just because someone says somebody else is a troll surely is not valid
reason to take that for granted.

But googling [1-*] for Mr. Lazaridis makes it apparent that he _is_ a troll.
And even if you only take the two threads on c.l.py into account IMHO you
can see that.

He's been _banned_ from several OS project mailing lists like eclipse,
netbeans and hibernate. Of course he claims that is because of censorship
and has nothing to do with his actions in those respective communities. But
somehow to me at least a pattern is visible.


[1]:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.java.softwaretools/browse_frm/thread/836fe2380e6e2649/748a70ee4e39fc41?q=Lazaridis+Ilias&_done=%2Fgroups%3Fq%3DLazaridis+Ilias%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN%26tab%3Dwg%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+Search&&d#748a70ee4e39fc41

[2]: http://www.netbeans.org/servlets/ReadMsg?msgId=872061&listName=nbusers

[3]:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.java.softwaretools/browse_frm/thread/f07832cf6d0094f0/85ae8ee0bccdeb14?q=Lazaridis+Ilias&_done=%2Fgroups%3Fq%3DLazaridis+Ilias%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN%26tab%3Dwg%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+Search&&d#85ae8ee0bccdeb14

[4]:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.java.softwaretools/browse_frm/thread/837df2c1188e6e39/18b5dcfd54a6a902?q=Lazaridis+Ilias&_done=%2Fgroups%3Fq%3DLazaridis+Ilias%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN%26tab%3Dwg%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+Search&&d#18b5dcfd54a6a902

Ilias Lazaridis

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 7:23:08 AM2/14/05
to
Brian Beck wrote:
> Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
>> this answer do not fit in most questions.
>>
>> please review them again.
>
> Actually, it does. Please review them again.
>
>> My questions:
>>
>> a) Why does the Python Foundation not provide additionally a binary
>> version, compiled with MinGW or another open-source compiler?
>
> Because no one has yet volunteered their time and effort to get the
> job done.
[...]

thank you for placing the answers in context.

>> I ask some questions and suggest some things.
>>
>> Voluntarlily and without beeing paid.
>
> What a martyr you are.

like all the open-source folks?

>> There are many commercial systems around python.
>>
>> So please stop this volunteerism-stuff.
>
> If the support you're looking for is beneficial to your commercial
> application a.k.a. business, then why aren't you making it happen?

I am in the process of doing so.

First I have to analyze the status-quo.

Which is not very simple with such a community.

> Obviously the existing commercial development teams are doing fine
> without it, otherwise it would exist. Even then, a commercial
> developer providing their development work to enhance the standard
> Python distribution IS volunteering.

One of the most funny things within open-source is that switching:

first:
"we have powerfull solutions which beat this and that"

then:
"hey, this is just volunteer work"

-

I was impressed by zope and plone.

But if those answers above were of official nature, I must seriously
rethink if I can rely on _any_ system which is based on python, as the
foundation and the community do not care about essential needs and
requirements.

.

--
http://lazaridis.com

Ilias Lazaridis

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 6:46:26 AM2/14/05
to

I have.

I've review several threads,publications, actions etc., that show that
the users have this need.

please review the initial thread with care, i've pointed to some
documents/thread.

.

--
http://lazaridis.com

bruno modulix

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 8:12:57 AM2/14/05
to
Simon Brunning wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:23:08 +0200, Ilias Lazaridis <il...@lazaridis.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>
>>But if those answers above were of official nature, I must seriously
>>rethink if I can rely on _any_ system which is based on python, as the
>>foundation and the community do not care about essential needs and
>>requirements.
>
>
> I couldn't agree more. You need to find a community that *does* care
> about essential needs. Might I recommend Perl or Ruby?
>

Why do you hate Perl and Ruby community that much ?

--

Stephen Kellett

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 9:53:37 AM2/14/05
to
In message <cuq57b$j83$1...@usenet.otenet.gr>, Ilias Lazaridis
<il...@lazaridis.com> writes

>the community do not care about essential needs and requirements.

Wrong. They do. They just don't care about *your* essential needs and
requirements which *you* want *others* to fulfill at *their* cost. As
others have said, "do some work yourself".

Stephen

Stephen Kellett

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 9:51:13 AM2/14/05
to
In message <cuq5du$k7g$1...@usenet.otenet.gr>, Ilias Lazaridis
<il...@lazaridis.com> writes

>> And yet there is not one company that has someone devoted full-time
>>to developing Python. Not even Guido.
>
>Who's "Guido"?

LOL Falling off my chair!!!!!!

Fredrik Lundh

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 11:31:04 AM2/14/05
to pytho...@python.org
"Pat" wrote:


> The bottom line is that compiling C extension modules on the
> Windows platform for Python 2.4 is, today, a royal pain in the
> ass.

really?

> python setup.py install

works for me.

</F>

Cameron Laird

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 1:08:04 PM2/14/05
to
In article <37bkemF...@individual.net>,
.
.
.
Me, too. On the off-chance that a naive passerby is misled by
parts of this thread, I'll point out that ... well, if the
alternative to Python, say, is commercial products which are to
be judged on how much they "care about essential needs and
requirements" of *users* ...

Nope, 'can't do it. I can't finish that sentence with a straight
face.

Pat

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 1:21:09 PM2/14/05
to
So what if someone appears to be a troll? Suck it up and rise above
it. This thread started with legitimate questions. Unfortunately,
almost every response has been dismissive, petty, and a complete waste
of time and effort. Please respond to the issue or simply ignore it.
The issue is real and I'd like to find a solution to it as well. Right
now it feels like I'm in the company of a bunch of hell-bent school
bullies. I'm ashamed of the behavior I'm witnessing on this list.

Pat

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 1:27:06 PM2/14/05
to
I thought I was being as clear and specific as I needed to be.
Apparently not. I'm talking about compiling the original source code,
per the recommendations made by Mike Fletcher and documented here:

Python 2.4 Extensions w/ the MS Toolkit Compiler

http://www.vrplumber.com/programming/mstoolkit/

Now, if you know something I don't, I'm all ears. But I don't see how
your suggestion solves my problem. But I'll be thrilled if that is the
case. Care to enlighten me?

David Fraser

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 1:40:00 PM2/14/05
to
Pat wrote:
> Wow! I must say, I'm less than impressed with the responses so far. I
> know Ilias can give the impression that he is just trolling, but I can
> assure you he is not. At least, not in this case. ;-)
>
> So in an effort to make some headway, I'm going to try to summarize the
> current state of affairs. The bottom line is that compiling C
> extension modules on the Windows platform for Python 2.4 is, today, a
> royal pain in the ass. Period. Here's why.
>
> The main challenge is that extensions must be compiled using the same
> runtime dll as that used by the Python interpreter itself.

Actually compiling extensions with mingw seems to work fine. Have you
tried it?

David

Stephen Kellett

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 1:28:13 PM2/14/05
to
In message <1108398011.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, Pat
<pob...@orbtech.com> writes

>Wow! I must say, I'm less than impressed with the responses so far. I
>know Ilias can give the impression that he is just trolling, but I can
>assure you he is not. At least, not in this case. ;-)

He deserves what he gets. He appears to put no effort in, other than to
o Write his own document for his own needs that no one else is
interested in
o Answer people's comments to him in a way that does not demonstrate he
has put any effort in.
o Based on his answers it seems pretty clear to me (and it seems many
others) that he has not put any effort in and has no intention of doing
so.

>In addition, there are some unresolved licensing questions concerning
>the .NET runtime file for extensions (msvcr71.dll):

To quote that URL;
<QUOTE>
The 2.4 python.org installer installs msvcr71.dll on the target system.

If someone uses py2exe or a similar tool to create a frozen application,
is he allowed to redistribute this msvcr71.dll to other users together
with his application or not, even if he doesn't own MSVC?
</END QUOTE>

msvcr71.dll is a redistributable for applications written using their
compiler. You can redistribute that. If that answer is not good enough
for you there is now a free version of Microsofts Visual Studio called
Visual Studio Express (downloadable from the Microsoft's website). This
DLL is (to my understanding) part of Visual Studio 7.1 and Visual Studio
Express.

No licensing problem exists. Microsoft will not get upset about
msvcr71.dll being distributed. They will if you distribute msvcr71d.dll
though - don't do that!

I'm not a lawyer, so take this as you would any other free advice and
download Visual Studio Express and read the redistribution sections in
the license/help file to verify. Alternatively search msdn.microsoft.com
for "redistributable".

Look at this from Microsoft's perspective - Python is a language that
can be used on Windows operating systems. msvcr71.dll is required to
make some versions of Python work. Microsoft are not stupid - they know
that to encourage uptake of their OS they shouldn't put needless
restrictions on certain technology - the C runtime being on of those
technologies. It is in Microsoft's own best interests to allow
msvcr71.dll to be used for Python.

>users. I can't expect them to purchase a .NET compiler or go through a

See above.

Regards

Stephen

Stephen Kellett

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 1:52:21 PM2/14/05
to
In message <guLnmSj9...@objmedia.demon.co.uk>, Stephen Kellett
<sn...@objmedia.demon.co.uk> writes

>Studio Express (downloadable from the Microsoft's website). This DLL is
>(to my understanding) part of Visual Studio 7.1 and Visual Studio
>Express.

My mistake. Visual Studio Express is going to be part of Version 8
(2005) and thus the DLLs there will be msvcr80.dll

That said, I still stand by my licensing comments.

Distributable files overview.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/vccore/h
tml/vcconalistofredistributablefiles.asp

V7.0/V7.1 specific redistribution instructions.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;326922
Title: INFO: Redistribution of the Shared C Runtime Component in Visual
C++ .NET
Article ID : 326922
Last Review : March 25, 2004
Revision : 1.0
Keywords: kbinfo KB326922

Stephen Kellett

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 1:59:37 PM2/14/05
to
In message <1108405269.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, Pat
<pob...@orbtech.com> writes

>now it feels like I'm in the company of a bunch of hell-bent school
>bullies.

From my experience of bully behaviour that isn't what is happening here.
Bullying usually involves abusive behaviour and language and isn't much
to do with the topic as the person. The responses he has got are to do
with how he is behaving, not who he is. I haven't seen any abusive
language. As for behaviour, people are being as blunt with him as he is
with them. Many have also told him what he should do in order to get a
better response. He has ignored them.

Many societies around the world shun people that won't fit the norm. The
norm in the newsgroups he is causing trouble in is that "You look for
yourself first, do some research, then ask". He isn't even willing to
use a search engine, let alone read the documentation or heaven forbid,
read the source code himself. Sooner or later he'll give up, or realise
that if he does a bit of the work himself he'll get much more back. Its
up to him.

You'll notice that I've answered your question in another reply as its
obvious you have put some effort in before making your comments. In
other words I am not behaving in a contradictory way to what I specified
above.

Pat

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 2:00:25 PM2/14/05
to
Actually, no. We ran into some issues with Python 2.4 that caused us
to return to Python 2.3.5. But I would really like to upgrade to
Python 2.4. So I started researching the subject before I did
anything.

If you are telling me that minGW can compile extensions that are
compatible with the Python 2.4 that uses msvcr71.dll, then that is good
news indeed. Is there anything that needs to be configured or patched
to make this happen? And how does minGW know which dll to link? What
if I have both versions of Python installed - 2.3.5 and 2.4? Is there
an easy way to detect this and switch between the two dlls?

If I'm asking questions already answered elsewhere, I'd love a link to
that resource, if you have it.

Thanks,

Pat

Ilias Lazaridis

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 2:14:14 PM2/14/05
to
Grant Edwards wrote:

> On 2005-02-14, Ilias Lazaridis <il...@lazaridis.com> wrote:
>
>>Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>>
>>>Ilias Lazaridis wrote
>>>
>>>>The idea that the Python Foundation cares about user needs would affect that.
>>>
>>>please let the users speak for themselves.
>>
>>I have.
>>
>>I've review several threads,publications, actions etc., that show that
>>the users have this need.
>
> This is open source. You don't just order somebody else to do
> what you want. You _do_ it and donate it to the community.

I analyze the current situation.

The is the fundamentall step before doing anything.

But the reaction of this community raises some questions and my curiosity.

>>please review the initial thread with care, i've pointed to
>>some documents/thread.
>

> So what? You want it, you do it.

I like to synchronize any efforts with the existing ones.

That's why I ask some questions.

nothing special.

.

--
http://lazaridis.com

Pat

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 2:15:27 PM2/14/05