[EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler
Ilias Lazaridis
[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.]
.
Michael Hoffman
> 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
> 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
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
> 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.
.
Ilias Lazaridis
> 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]
>
> 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 )
.
David Fraser
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
> 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]
.
Fuzzyman
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
> 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'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
> "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
> Michael Hoffman wrote:
>
> Can you please point me (and the readers) to this resource?
>> 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
> 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.
.
Diez B. Roggisch
> [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
> Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
>> David Fraser wrote:
>>> Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
[...]
>>
>> 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.
.
Ilias Lazaridis
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."
.
Ilias Lazaridis
> 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
> [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
> Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
[...]
>
> 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].
.
Ilias Lazaridis
> 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."
.
Diez B. Roggisch
>> 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
> The idea that the Python Foundation cares about user needs would affect that.
please let the users speak for themselves.
</F>
Duncan Booth
>> 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
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
>>>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.
.
jfj
> 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
> Ilias Lazaridis 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.
>
>
> 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.
.
jfj
> 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
>>
>
>
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
>
> 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
> 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
>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
>
> 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
>
> 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
> 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
(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
<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
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
> 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
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
<sn...@objmedia.demon.co.uk> writes
>Hi Robert,
Weird, you hit "reply" and the newsreader does a "post". C'est la vie.
Ilias Lazaridis
> 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.
.
Diez B. Roggisch
> 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.
[2]: http://www.netbeans.org/servlets/ReadMsg?msgId=872061&listName=nbusers
Ilias Lazaridis
> 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.
.
Ilias Lazaridis
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.
.
bruno modulix
> 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
<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
<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
> 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
.
.
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
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
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
> 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
<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
<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
<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
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
> 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.
>
> 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.
.
Pat
I appreciate your responses. Maybe "school bullies" was an
exaggeration on my part. At the same time, I'm not sure it is good for
the Python community to expect everyone to roll up their sleeves and
hack at something to make it work. (And I don't mean to imply that you
hold that opinion. But far too many others *have* expressed that.)
It's a marketing issue as much as anything. Why is Apple doing so
well? They make everything simple. Now the techies will argue that
they make some things too simple (like the iPod), but it's hard to deny
that simple things that work consistently without any fuss have a
broader appeal with the public at large.
I think the same applies to developers. Not every programmer is
willing to go through a lot of pain and effort just to get something
simple to work. I, for one, am willing to go through that pain to save
users of my product (who happen to be developers) from having to do the
same. But I don't think any less of my users. I'm as lazy as they
are. I like simple things that work consistently without any fuss too.
:-)
Bruno Desthuilliers
> 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...
>>
>
>
> 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.
>
then google for 'Ilias Lazaridis'.
Bruno
Bruno Desthuilliers
> 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.
Just google for Ilias Lazaridis... You may observe that our new troll
has already played the same game on many newsgroups, forums and whatever...
> Stephen
Stephen Kellett
<pob...@orbtech.com> writes
>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.
Pat, could you include some context in your replies? I have no idea if
you are replying to my comments about Visual Studio Express or someone
else? The only text I see in your replies is what you write, no text
from the posting you are replying to. As it is I've ignored all your
replies so far as I'm not sure I'm the person you are addressing (until
I saw the above, now I'm confused).
Pat
a
>See above.
That answers the cost question (assuming that your interpretation of
the licensing is correct, since I'm not a lawyer nor qualified to
render much of an opinion on that). But there is still the issue of
going through a bunch of configuration hassle that scares me away from
expecting my users to make use of the MS tools. Unless things have
gotten easier since Mike Fletcher wrote about the situation.
But thanks for the licensing info. Much appreciated. :-)
Fredrik Lundh
> 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
the python source or the extension source?
> The bottom line is that compiling C extension modules
would indicate the latter. setup.py handles that just fine, if you have the
right tools. no pain at all.
> Now, if you know something I don't, I'm all ears. But I don't see how
> your suggestion solves my problem.
if your problem is compiling C extension modules, I suggest getting a
good compiler. I've done that, and compiling C extension modules is
no problem at all.
if your problem is that you don't want to use a good compiler, or that
your company cannot afford to buy you a compiler, or you have other
reasons to chose the "pain in the ass" way over the "it just works" way,
I'm afraid I cannot help you. my time's too precious to waste on inferior
tools.
</F>
Pat
<quote>
Pat, could you include some context in your replies? I have no idea if
you are replying to my comments about Visual Studio Express or someone
else? The only text I see in your replies is what you write, no text
from the posting you are replying to. As it is I've ignored all your
replies so far as I'm not sure I'm the person you are addressing (until
I saw the above, now I'm confused).
</quote>
Sorry about that. I'm replying using Google Groups and making a total
mess of things. :-(
David Fraser asked if I had tried to compile a Python extension for
Python 2.4 using minGW. I said that I had not (but I have for Python
2.3.5). Here is the rest of my reply, for future reference:
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.
Patrick K. O'Brien
Stephen Kellett
<pob...@orbtech.com> writes
>That answers the cost question (assuming that your interpretation of
>the licensing is correct, since I'm not a lawyer nor qualified to
>render much of an opinion on that). But there is still the issue of
>going through a bunch of configuration hassle that scares me away from
What configuration hassle? Can't be any harder than specifying a
different CRT surely?
Pat
Okay, I think we are pretty much talking about the same thing. My
problem is not that I'm unable or unwilling to purchase a good
compiler. My problem is that I don't want to make it a requirement of
my users. The twist is that my users will be working out of a
Subversion repository that includes source code for extensions written
in C. Those extensions need to be compiled, and the code changes too
frequently for me to want to deal with supplying compiled binaries.
So I'm looking for options for Windows users who do not have, and are
unwilling to get, a Microsoft compiler. For some users, minGW is an
attractive option. For those who want to use minGW, I'm trying to
establish whether or not minGW is a viable option, particularly for
Python 2.4. I was under the impression that there were possible
advantages to compiling Python itself using minGW, but that that
required some patches that hadn't been applied to Python (for reasons
unknown to me). Said patches are available here:
http://jove.prohosting.com/iwave/ipython/pyMinGW.html
I'm also under the impression that there are possible disadvantages to
compiling Python itself with anything other than the Microsoft's
optimizing compiler, such as performance. But I haven't seen any
numbers on that, so I don't have information one way or the other.
It may also be the case that minGW can now correctly compile extension
that link to the newer runtime used by Python 2.4, but that wasn't
always the case. If that's true, that would eliminate the primary
reason for wanting to compile Python itself with minGW, though
philosophical differences with MS might motivate some to want to avoid
the MS compilers altogether.
Perhaps the only thing that's a mess is my understanding of the
situation. But even if that's the case, I don't think I'm alone, based
on all the threads I've read over the past couple of days. ;-)
Thanks in advance for any help anyone can offer to reduce my confusion.
Stephen Kellett
<pob...@orbtech.com> writes
>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?
Easy? Depends what you call easy.
a) You just need to detect if pythonNN.dll is implicitly linked to
msvcrt.dll or msvcrXX.dll (where XX indicates a VS studio number,
currently XX can only be 71, but if Python is done for Visual Studio
2005 (8.0) then XX may also have a value of 80).
b) GetModuleHandle(name of DLL from a) to get the DLL handle.
c) GetProcAddress on the respective to get the C runtime function you
want to call (for example, fopen).
d) call the function.
You either need (a) or all of (a)...(d) depending on what you are doing.
Those embedding Python but no idea of the Python version in advance will
do the latter.
>If I'm asking questions already answered elsewhere, I'd love a link to
>that resource, if you have it.
I'm probably not the best person to answer such a question. I'm mainly a
C/C++ (with Java under protest) person dabbling in Python/Ruby.
Pat
> In message <1108408914.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Pat
> <pob...@orbtech.com> writes
> >That answers the cost question (assuming that your interpretation of
> >the licensing is correct, since I'm not a lawyer nor qualified to
> >render much of an opinion on that). But there is still the issue of
> >going through a bunch of configuration hassle that scares me away
from
>
> What configuration hassle? Can't be any harder than specifying a
> different CRT surely?
I don't want to have to ask users of my code to have to go through
this:
http://www.vrplumber.com/programming/mstoolkit/
What I want is to provide everything a user would need within my own
Subversion repository. Any C code would be compiled behind the scenes
using free tools that I'm able to include in my repository (without
having to hire a lawyer first).
Having to tell users that they need to download, install, and configure
all this additional compiler stuff is asking too much from my potential
user base, since I'm also targeting novices and developers from other
languages for whom C compiler stuff is going to be a barrier to entry.
I hope that makes sense. :-)
--
A.B., Khalid
> 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.
If passing all the regression tests of the official Windows Python
distribution is an indication of the quality of patch-- and pyMinGW
patched and MinGW built Python does pass all of them-- then one is
inclined to say that pyMinGW is a good patch.
The reason why it is, on the other hand, not included in the official
distribution is threefold.
1. Contrary to what many might imagine, I don't think enough people use
MinGW to frankly justify any extra effort beyond pyMinGW.
2. Given number 1 above, this patch, I believe, and I could be
mistaken, must not rush to be included in Python's core; people like
your esteemed person should test it (note that it is designed not to
interfere with your trusted and working official Python, if any); it is
only when enough people do such testing that there will be a case for
it to be included in Python's core.
3. Finally. there is nothing wrong with third-party patches if they get
the job done, which I believe is the case with pyMinGW.
Regards,
Khalid
Fredrik Lundh
> Okay, I think we are pretty much talking about the same thing. My
> problem is not that I'm unable or unwilling to purchase a good
> compiler. My problem is that I don't want to make it a requirement of
> my users. The twist is that my users will be working out of a
> Subversion repository that includes source code for extensions written
> in C. Those extensions need to be compiled, and the code changes too
> frequently for me to want to deal with supplying compiled binaries.
here's what I do to supply compiled binaries for 2.1 through 2.4:
> mkall
> upload dist
> So I'm looking for options for Windows users who do not have, and are
> unwilling to get, a Microsoft compiler. For some users, minGW is an
> attractive option. For those who want to use minGW, I'm trying to
> establish whether or not minGW is a viable option, particularly for
> Python 2.4.
here's what I just did (time in minutes):
+00: googled for the mingw home page
+00: found the mingw download page
+02: finally figured out what to download
+03: noticed that my usual SF site only offered 1K/s; aborted download
+07: finished downloading the mingw kit from another SF site
+17: finished installing
+18: added \mingw\bin to the path
+18: typed "python setup.py install --compiler=mingw32"
+18: got a linker error; googled for help
+19: copied python24.dll to \mingw\lib
+20: finished building the sample library (cElementTree); all tests pass
so what's your excuse for not doing this? ;-)
</F>
Fredrik Lundh
> 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?
just use the right Python to run the setup.py script, and distutils will take
care of the rest.
</F>
Fredrik Lundh
> Having to tell users that they need to download, install, and configure
> all this additional compiler stuff is asking too much from my potential
> user base, since I'm also targeting novices and developers from other
> languages for whom C compiler stuff is going to be a barrier to entry.
>
> I hope that makes sense. :-)
telling them to download and configure subversion just to be able to use
your stuff doesn't make much sense, no.
(not that subversion is hard to install, though, but it's a lot harder than just
running a bdist installer).
</F>
Fredrik Lundh
>>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?
>
> Easy? Depends what you call easy.
in the context of "building a C extension when you have multiple versions
installed", the answer is "easy". setup.py automatically finds the right DLL,
mingw seems take care of the rest.
> a) You just need to detect if pythonNN.dll is implicitly linked to msvcrt.dll or msvcrXX.dll
> (where XX indicates a VS studio number, currently XX can only be 71, but if Python is done for
> Visual Studio 2005 (8.0) then XX may also have a value of 80).
>
> b) GetModuleHandle(name of DLL from a) to get the DLL handle.
>
> c) GetProcAddress on the respective to get the C runtime function you want to call (for example,
> fopen).
>
> d) call the function.
>
> You either need (a) or all of (a)...(d) depending on what you are doing. Those embedding Python
> but no idea of the Python version in advance will do the latter.
if someone needs code that does it all, check the exemaker sources:
http://effbot.org/zone/exemaker.htm
</F>
Tony Meyer
>> concerning the .NET runtime file for extensions (msvcr71.dll):
> msvcr71.dll is a redistributable for applications written using their
> compiler. You can redistribute that.
If (and only if) you own a copy of the (non-free) Microsoft compiler, or are
a redistributer of another package that legitimately includes it. This is
what the license states (the python-dev thread referenced earlier contains
links to the various license texts).
There are also other conditions, to do with what you are redistributing it
with (it can't be alone), and including a particular type of license with
your redistribution. (It appears that Python 2.4 doesn't correctly follow
this at the moment, IIRC).
> 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.
The licenses for the free compilers from Microsoft do *not* include
permission to redistribute any of the dlls, including msvcr71.dll. So you
can get hold of it, but you cannot redistribute it.
> No licensing problem exists.
Not true. The python-dev threads have much more detail.
> Microsoft will not get upset about msvcr71.dll being distributed.
This is possibly true. But they do have the right to do so, and to take
legal action against people that don't follow the rules that they have laid
out.
=Tony.Meyer
Stephen Kellett
<pob...@orbtech.com> writes
>> What configuration hassle? Can't be any harder than specifying a
>> different CRT surely?
>
>I don't want to have to ask users of my code to have to go through
>this:
>
>http://www.vrplumber.com/programming/mstoolkit/
OK. I misunderstood your original intent. I thought the original
question was can we redistribute this DLL? I answered this bit. I wasn't
attempting to answer the larger question about building extensions etc.
My development environment has all the things in that article by default
- I wouldn't even start work without them, so I had them "taken for
granted" in my thoughts. I can see your problem :-) but I have no easy
answer. Sorry.
Stephen Kellett
<sn...@objmedia.demon.co.uk> writes
>In message <1108409476....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Pat
><pob...@orbtech.com> writes
>>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?
>
>Easy? Depends what you call easy.
>
>a) You just need to detect if pythonNN.dll is implicitly linked to
>msvcrt.dll or msvcrXX.dll (where XX indicates a VS studio number,
>currently XX can only be 71, but if Python is done for Visual Studio
>2005 (8.0) then XX may also have a value of 80).
I should have also mentioned that if you don't know how to do get the
list of imported DLLs you can grab the source code for the PE Explorer
DLL from:
http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk/freeSoftware/peFileDLL.html
If you want to see how to use this DLL you can also grab:
http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk/freeSoftware/peFileExplorer.html
Pat
A few things. Primarily the fact that I'm not very experienced in C
(the extensions that I need to have compiled are not written by me).
Secondarily, the fact that the discussion threads I read made it seem
much more complicated than what you just described. Third, the fact
that some of the code we've tried to compile didn't compile cleanly,
the way your cElementTree did (but I can't remember what exactly the
problem was and I didn't do the compiling). And, finally, an aversion
to trial-and-error solutions. I prefer to Google and ask questions
when I'm out of my element.
Thanks for the info.
--
Stephen Kellett
Meyer <t-m...@ihug.co.nz> writes
>There are also other conditions, to do with what you are redistributing it
>with (it can't be alone), and including a particular type of license with
>your redistribution. (It appears that Python 2.4 doesn't correctly follow
>this at the moment, IIRC).
Lots of points from Tony stating a different point of view. I'll assume
you are correct. However, surely if you Python 2.4 installed they'll
have this DLL anyway, so the point is moot, unless of course, Python 2.4
is in breach as well.
Stephen Kellett
<il...@lazaridis.com> writes
>I like to synchronize any efforts with the existing ones.
I assume the reason for doing that would be to avoid duplicating effort?
If that is the case why do you want lots of people all to answer your
questionnaire. Thats a huge duplication of effort.
A much more effective use of effort would be for you to do the research
and when you are done to ask people to comment on the *results* of the
research, not the questions.
This accomplishes several things:
o Reduction in duplication of effort.
o Demonstrates to everyone else that you are prepared to do some work
before asking questions.
o When you find that the response is much more welcoming than you have
had so far you will have learnt that you need to put some effort in to
get some reward out (which is what most of us have been trying to tell
you).
Of course, based on your behaviour here (and currently in comp.lang.ruby
where you are spinning a nice yarn in not bothering to read up on the
answers people give you, even when their answers are detailed), I have
not much hope of you taking the above approach.
Stephen
Fredrik Lundh
> A few things. Primarily the fact that I'm not very experienced in C
> (the extensions that I need to have compiled are not written by me).
> Secondarily, the fact that the discussion threads I read made it seem
> much more complicated than what you just described.
from two posts at the top of this thread:
"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."
and
"The mingw compiler *is* supported through distutils. distutils
can straightforwardly be configured to build extensions with
mingw."
(now go read Ilias replies to those posts)
> Third, the fact that some of the code we've tried to compile didn't compile
> cleanly, the way your cElementTree did (but I can't remember what exactly
> the problem was and I didn't do the compiling).
was that code tested under gcc? code that compiles under visual C doesn't
necessarily compile silently under gcc, but fixing that is usually pretty trivial
(no worse than porting mostly portable code between platforms).
> And, finally, an aversion to trial-and-error solutions. I prefer to Google and
> ask questions when I'm out of my element.
sure didn't sound that way when you entered this thread:
"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. /.../"
now go download MinGW and figure out what's wrong with your C code.
if you get stuck, post the error messages, and I'm sure some c.l.pythoneer
will help you sort it out.
</F>
Fredrik Lundh
> Lots of points from Tony stating a different point of view. I'll assume you are correct. However,
> surely if you Python 2.4 installed they'll have this DLL anyway, so the point is moot, unless of
> course, Python 2.4 is in breach as well.
the compilers used to build Python 2.4 were provided by Microsoft, free
of charge. conspiracy theorists may see this as evidence of some evil plan,
of course, but I can assure you that when it comes to evilness, the PSU b
Steve Horsley
> In message <cuq5du$k7g$1...@usenet.otenet.gr>, Ilias Lazaridis
> <il...@lazaridis.com> writes
>
>>> And yet there is not one company that has someone devoted full-time
>>> to developing Python. Not even Guido.
>>
>>
>> Who's "Guido"?
>
>
> LOL Falling off my chair!!!!!!
I think the expression you are looking for is ROFL!
Mike Meyer
> If it is a programming language, the requirement "using an open-source
> toolchain" is a rational and valid one.
It is. However, mingW has nothing to do with "using an open-sourcer
toolchain".
Python runs in an environment with a full, open-source tool chain. You
can use it on Linux or any of the various BSDs. It also runs in an
environment where you can't have an open-source toolchain: Windows.
Once you've given up on an open-source environment, arguing about
trivia like which free compiler you are going to use is a waste of
time. Either use a real open-source environment, or live with the
closed-source tools/environment that someone is willing to support.
Or, of course, support the environment you want yourself.
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <m...@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
Delaney, Timothy C (Timothy)
> In message <cuq5du$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!!!!!!
See, the problem is that you have to go all the way to the second FAQ in
order to find out who Guido is. Obviously it needs to be more prominent
on the Python web site.
Oh - you mean Ilias didn't actually *read* anything on the Python web
site? My bad.
Illias - I'm assuming you are not a troll (despite the contrary
evidence) and am going to direct you to a site with all the answers you
need.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Tim Delaney
Ilias Lazaridis
> In message <cuqta4$4c1$2...@usenet.otenet.gr>, Ilias Lazaridis
> <il...@lazaridis.com> writes
>
>> I like to synchronize any efforts with the existing ones.
>
> I assume the reason for doing that would be to avoid duplicating effort?
Your suggestions were irrelevant to me.
Please avoid further off-topic posts.
.
Ilias Lazaridis
> 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."
If I understand this right, I cannot produce commercial software with
the cygwin toolset.
.
Ilias Lazaridis
each message adressed to me tomorrow. Thank you for your time.]
-
I find this thread facinating.
I don't know wich of the posters in this thread belong to the python team.
Nearly no one community member gives simply some answers to this very
simple questions.
Please summarize all the efforts the community has taken to write within
this thread.
This sum of efforts should be enouth to setup a basic official MinGW
compilation.
I have the strange feeling, that some people within the community and
the team are not intrested in this.
-
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."
-
Let's see:
The process would be:
a) A Python Foundation official states: "of course we accept diversity
and of course we are intrested that our source-code-base compiles
directly with MinGW (and other compilers)".
b) the pyMinGW developer states: "I am intrested that my patches are
included within the main python source code base" [of course this
contribution would deserve to be mentioned somewhere]
c) One part of the Python Community states: "look those loosers, like to
use MinGW toolkit - pah! I'll continue to use my super-optimizing, xx%
faster results, less hassle Microsoft-Compiler"
d) One part of the Python Community states: "I'm very happy that my
toolset of choice gets official support, to which I can contribute as a
community member"
e) there is no point e. People start simply to cooperate, thus python's
evolution is ensured.
-
I try to sleep after this communicational desaster here.
Good night to all.
.
Stephen Kellett
<sh...@the.moon> writes
>Stephen Kellett wrote:
>>> Who's "Guido"?
>> LOL Falling off my chair!!!!!!
>
>I think the expression you are looking for is ROFL!
:-) Yes, but with that I could've been standing up before ending up on
the floor. I wrote it as I felt it!. Its a really good demonstration as
to the depth of the research performed by Illias.
I'm waiting for the "Who's Matz?" comment in comp.lang.ruby....
Robert Kern
Wait, you demand a completely open source toolchain on a proprietary
operating system to develop proprietary software?
The mind *boggles*.
--
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
Robert Kern
> 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.
I think that my participation in the community for the past six years
and a rational examination of the responses you have received so far
qualify me, just a little bit, to conclude that this community does not
tolerate your kind of behaviour well.
If you want one that does so tolerate your behaviour, you need to keep
looking.
>>> 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"?
The guy who wrote Python originally and is still the head developer.
>> 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.
Volunteerism does not, indeed, exclude professionalism. However, being
professional does not entail satisfying the desires of everyone who
asks. Being professional does not mean that volunteerism is not the
driving force of this community.
If this does not appeal to you, then this is not the community that you
are looking for.
>>> 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.
Okay, let me clarify: I am asking you to volunteer your time with
something that is going to be productive. Continuing here on c.l.py as
you have been will not be productive. I've seen dozens of people who act
like you do come in to this newsgroup and leave again unsatisfied.
>> or alternately, stop writing questionnaires and bothering us.
>
>
> Feel free to ignore the threads.
I would have been more than happy to until my web page was used. Now I
feel some obligation to correct some things.
> And please speak for yourself.
I am speaking as a member of this community, not necessarily for this
community. But I do have some experience with how this community behaves
and how it responds to people who behave like you do. I know that they
do not mix well at all.
If you want a community that does tolerate this behaviour, you need to
keep looking.
>> 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.
You could do it much more efficiently. And in a way that does not
generate the obvious ill-will that you have generated. This thread
*could* have been completely technical and addressed your real concerns
quite quickly. However, you have acted in a way that *invites* the
accusation of trolling, that immediately disinclines people to help you,
that ruins your credibility here.
You *can* act differently, and we *will* respond better.
If you don't want to act differently, then your interaction with this
community will continue to be counterproductive, and I would advise you
to look for some other community that is more responsive.
>>> 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.
I will be more careful in the future.
Tim Peters
...
> Let's see:
>
> The process would be:
>
> a) A Python Foundation official states: "of course we accept diversity
> and of course we are intrested that our source-code-base compiles
> directly with MinGW (and other compilers)".
Well, I'm a Director of the Python Software Foundation, and my view is
"the more platforms the merrier". But I'm not paid to work on Python,
and I don't have time to volunteer to help MinGW along, so I don't
anticipate that I'll do anything here beyond writing this reply.
I think you're mistaken about the role the PSF plays here. For
example, the PSF does no development work on Python -- all work on
Python comes from volunteers, and the PSF can't tell anyone what to
do. The PSF did start a grant program last year, and a proposal to
fund MinGW-for-Python development would certainly be considered. But
that too requires that someone volunteer to write such a proposal, and
take their chances on getting a grant. Those chances are,
unfortunately, not good, since even in the program's first year we got
proposals requesting funding vastly exceeding the US$40K we could
afford to spend.
That leaves volunteers, or a company that wants what you want enough
to pay for it on their own (which has happened, but not often -- I
don't think it's happened since Zope Corp funded development of the
datetime module).
> b) the pyMinGW developer states: "I am intrested that my patches are
> included within the main python source code base" [of course this
> contribution would deserve to be mentioned somewhere]
>
> c) One part of the Python Community states: "look those loosers, like to
> use MinGW toolkit - pah! I'll continue to use my super-optimizing, xx%
> faster results, less hassle Microsoft-Compiler"
>
> d) One part of the Python Community states: "I'm very happy that my
> toolset of choice gets official support, to which I can contribute as a
> community member"
>
> e) there is no point e. People start simply to cooperate, thus python's
> evolution is ensured.
Sorry, I didn't grasp the point of b thru e.
> ...
> Good night to all.
Likewise!
Jeff Shannon
> I think the same applies to developers. Not every programmer is
> willing to go through a lot of pain and effort just to get something
> simple to work.
True... but given I.L.'s insistence on a rather stringent set of
requirements (fully open-source toolchain to produce closed-source
software on proprietary OS), and his attitude ("Why haven't all of you
done this for me already? WHY WHY WHY?"), he comes across as someone
who's *insisting* that *someone else* should go to a lot of pain and
effort on *his* behalf. Indeed, he's insisting that the Python
community should provide volunteer effort because it will (supposedly)
assist him in his commercial endeavor.
Notably, when you've commented in a reasonable manner about having
apparently similar needs, several people have offered suggestions as
to how to solve your problems. People have also offered I.L.
suggestions, but he derides them as not being exactly what he wants
and continues to insist that others should perform volunteer work for
his benefit.
Now, there's nothing wrong with asking (politely) why certain things
are the way they are, or suggesting that it'd be nice if someone
changed a few things. But the insistence that he's being horribly
wronged because people aren't jumping at the chance to assist him is
more than a little bit offensive -- especially when he's turning up
his nose at solutions that are close (but not exact) matches to his
"requirements". Instead of saying "Hey, someone's done half my work
for me -- great!", he's saying "Hey, why haven't you done the rest of
my work!"
Jeff Shannon
Technician/Programmer
Credit International
Cameron Laird
Tim Peters <tim.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
>[Ilias Lazaridis]
>...
.
.
.
>That leaves volunteers, or a company that wants what you want enough
>to pay for it on their own (which has happened, but not often -- I
>don't think it's happened since Zope Corp funded development of the
>datetime module).
.
.
'Depending how you categorize things, there have been a few others
since then--IBM, for example, has paid non-IBM people for Python
stuff IBM open-sourced.
Well, maybe more than a few, now that I think about it.
David Fraser
> 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
> an easy way to detect this and switch between the two dlls?
>
> that resource, if you have it.
I use MinGW myself to compile extensions for Python 2.3.x so you should
have no problems there. And it seems like from the rest of the thread
that it works for Python 2.4 as well.
But please just download it, try it out, and report any problems in a
separate thread here - I'm sure you'll find people more than willing to
help. The actual error messages etc will yield more valuable discussion
than any speculation now - or you might find it just working
David
Duncan Booth
>> "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."
>
> If I understand this right, I cannot produce commercial software with
> the cygwin toolset.
>
Contrariwise. You can produce commercial software, and it doesn't have to
be GPL licensed. However if you want to distribute it (and much, possibly
most, commercial software is never distributed) you have to choose between
making it open-source, or buying a commercial license for cygwin. You do
realise that you can produce open-source software commercially?
If you want to make your program closed source then to distribute it you
have to pay for the cygwin license, which all seems pretty fair to me. You
have a problem with that?
Fredrik Lundh
Ilias Lazaridis
> [Ilias Lazaridis]
> ...
>
>>Let's see:
>>
>>The process would be:
>>
>>a) A Python Foundation official states: "of course we accept diversity
>>and of course we are intrested that our source-code-base compiles
>>directly with MinGW (and other compilers)".
>
> Well, I'm a Director of the Python Software Foundation, and my view is
> "the more platforms the merrier".
I extract: "you are intrested, that the source-code-base compiles
directly with MinGW (and other compilers)".
Thus you should be intrested, that existent patches are incorporated
into the source-code-base.
The suggested process ist: use of #defines whenever possible, to avoid
influence on the existent behaviour of the code.
> But I'm not paid to work on Python,
> and I don't have time to volunteer to help MinGW along, so I don't
> anticipate that I'll do anything here beyond writing this reply.
You have done already very much.
But should should take some time to evaluate community needs.
> I think you're mistaken about the role the PSF plays here. For
> example, the PSF does no development work on Python -- all work on
> Python comes from volunteers, and the PSF can't tell anyone what to
> do.
I understand.
PSF has no influence on the development. I've read a little around, and
start to understand:
http://www.python.org/psf/records/board/minutes-2004-11-09.html
> The PSF did start a grant program last year, and a proposal to
[...] - (funding)
I don't think that a founding is neccessary.
This effort could be driven by the intrested community members (which
obviously exist).
>>b) the pyMinGW developer states: "I am intrested that my patches are
>>included within the main python source code base" [of course this
>>contribution would deserve to be mentioned somewhere]
I mean the developer of those patches:
http://jove.prohosting.com/iwave/ipython/pyMinGW.html
He must be intrested that his patches are incorporated to the main
source code base, which would render his website useless [but of course
not his efforts and reputation].
[Of course his website could still serve as an "central point" for
intrested MinGW specific contributors.]
>>c) One part of the Python Community states: "look those loosers, like to
>>use MinGW toolkit - pah! I'll continue to use my super-optimizing, xx%
>>faster results, less hassle Microsoft-Compiler"
From the replies within this thread, i've extracted that some community
members would think somehow this way.
>>d) One part of the Python Community states: "I'm very happy that my
>>toolset of choice gets official support, to which I can contribute as a
>>community member"
From the replies within this thread, i've extracted that some community
members would think somehow this way.
>>e) there is no point e. People start simply to cooperate, thus python's
>>evolution is ensured.
A solid source-code-base and centralized efforts are a fundamentall part
for the evolution of python.
> Sorry, I didn't grasp the point of b thru e.
I've tried to clarify.
-
Now, can you please tell me the process I have to follow to suggest the
following (to the PSF or to the programmers or to the decision takers),
possibly to get at least a vote on it:
"Please ensure that the source-code-base compliles directly with MinGW.
The suggested process is to:
* provide the infrastructure
(e.g. mailinglist, issue- tracking-category,... )
* Notify the community about this subproject to channelise efforts
* include existing MinGW specific patches
* ensure future verificatioin of changes,
* optimal: due to an automated build-system
* or simpler: due to community-feedback
"
I've read a little about the processes:
http://www.python.org/dev/
http://www.python.org/dev/culture.html
http://www.python.org/dev/process.html
But I can't figure it out.
>>...
>>Good night to all.
>
>
> Likewise!
.
Ilias Lazaridis
> Ilias Lazaridis <il...@lazaridis.com> writes:
>
>>If it is a programming language, the requirement "using an open-source
>>toolchain" is a rational and valid one.
>
> It is. However, mingW has nothing to do with "using an open-sourcer
> toolchain".
>
> Python runs in an environment with a full, open-source tool chain. You
sorry, no further comment.
.
Ilias Lazaridis
> Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
>
>
>>>"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."
>>
>>If I understand this right, I cannot produce commercial software with
>>the cygwin toolset.
>
> Contrariwise. You can produce commercial software, and it doesn't have to
> be GPL licensed. However if you want to distribute it (and much, possibly
> most, commercial software is never distributed) you have to choose between
> making it open-source, or buying a commercial license for cygwin. You do
> realise that you can produce open-source software commercially?
I understand that I've possibly not expressed myself clear.
"proprietary software" should be the right term, right?
> If you want to make your program closed source then to distribute it you
> have to pay for the cygwin license, which all seems pretty fair to me. You
> have a problem with that?
yes.
.
Ilias Lazaridis
> Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
>> Duncan Booth wrote:
>>> 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
>> If I understand this right, I cannot produce commercial software
>> with the cygwin toolset.
>
> Wait, you demand a completely open source toolchain on a proprietary
> operating system to develop proprietary software?
I do not 'demand' this.
You've described existing constructs, which I simply like to use.
> The mind *boggles*.
.