[Stackless] MacOS stackless installers needed
Kristján Valur Jónsson
kristjan at ccpgames.com
Fri Apr 4 15:19:56 CEST 2014
Have you tried regular CPython 2.7? It is possible that 2.7 doesn't support that platform yet.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: stackless-bounces at stackless.com [mailto:stackless-
> bounces at stackless.com] On Behalf Of Hervé Coatanhay
> Sent: 4. apríl 2014 12:46
> To: The Stackless Python Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Stackless] MacOS stackless installers needed
> I am having trouble building an installer on Mac OS X 10.9, (I had to change
> build-installer.py to change LDFLAGS).
> @Robert Did you build the last installer on Mavericks with XCode 5.1?
> Did you do anything special ? My command line is:
> --dep-target=10.8 --universal-archs=intel
> And I had to remove this from LDFLAGS:
> I grabbed the source from
> https://bitbucket.org/stackless-dev/stackless and trie to build from 2.7-slp
> I'm thinking it is too much changes already just to build an installer, I must do
> something wrong.
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Filip M. Nowak <stackless at oneiroi.net>
> > Hi there,
> > On 03.04.2014 15:28, Hervé Coatanhay wrote:
> >> Hi FIlip,
> >> Both MacOS installer and homebrew use the framework-approach. This
> >> left prefix-approach for people that feels like hacking around IMHO.
> > "hackishness" of prefix-approach is a matter of open discussion I
> > would say. I must admit that I used to prefix-based way (and it is
> > extensively used in many POSIX OSes packaging systems) but I agree
> > that for Mac OS X framework thingy is more proper.
> >> For Homebrew, it might be as simple as creating a "keg only"
> >> Stackless Formula provided by a "Tap" on github.
> >> Concerning MacOS Installer, as I understand it, we're facing the
> >> following choice:
> >> - provide a Stackless installer which override official CPython
> >> installer (the choice made so far)
> >> - change build-script.py to change the "framework name"
> > I would go for the second option (with installer) - but again, it's
> > just me. This would be less confusing, easier and probably safer for
> > packager himself :) . At the end what's the goal? Basically - to
> > provide usable and nice enough instance of Stackless for Mac OS x? If so
> this would do.
> >> Does it sum it up well ?
> > Absolutely.
> >> Hervé
> >> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Filip M. Nowak <stackless at oneiroi.net>
> >>> (...)
> > All the best,
> > Filip
> > _______________________________________________
> > Stackless mailing list
> > Stackless at stackless.com
> > http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless
> Stackless mailing list
> Stackless at stackless.com
More information about the Stackless