473,696 Members | 2,003 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
+ Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

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

I'm a newcomer to python:

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

-

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/...f0444c467de525

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/kern...w32/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/pyt...ry/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/...3474e6c8053336

-

I just want to understand.

Thankfull for any pointer to official documents / statements.

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

..

--
http://lazaridis.com
Jul 18 '05 #1
188 8447
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
a) Why does the Python Foundation not provide additionally a binary
version, compiled with MinGW or another open-source compiler?
I use a binary version of Python compiled with an open-source compiler
on Windows that was provided by someone else.
b) Why does the Python Foundation not ensure, that the python
source-code is directly compilable with MinGW?
Why should they? It already runs on Windows with a freely available
compiler.
f) Are there any official (Python Foundation) statements / rationales
available, which explain why the MinGW compiler is unsupported, although
parts of the community obviously like to use it?
Not to my knowledge. But I would guess because supporting it would
obviously be a lot of work and the core developers have other things to
do they consider more important. They are volunteers, you know.

Why don't you solve this problem and produce a patched version of
Python that does what you want.
[google is _not_ a fried here. I like to have a stable development
environment, which is supported by the official projects, thus it can
pass quality-assurance without beeing afraid about every next release.]


Then you have several options:

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

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

Now why haven't *you* produced a version of Python that is directly
compileable with MinGW? Time's a-wasting.
--
Michael Hoffman
Jul 18 '05 #2
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=mingw3 2
works for me *without* any more work. Things can't get much simpler.

Bye.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miki Tebeka <mi*********@zo ran.com>
http://tebeka.bizhat.com
The only difference between children and adults is the price of the toys
Jul 18 '05 #3

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
I'm a newcomer to python:

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

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/...f0444c467de525
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/kern...w32/Notes.html

Not very difficult. The mingw compiler *is* supported through
distutils. distutils can straightforward ly 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
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/pyt...ry/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/...3474e6c8053336
-

I just want to understand.

Thankfull for any pointer to official documents / statements.

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

--
http://lazaridis.com


Jul 18 '05 #4
Michael Hoffman wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
a) Why does the Python Foundation not provide additionally a binary
version, compiled with MinGW or another open-source compiler?
I use a binary version of Python compiled with an open-source
compiler on Windows that was provided by someone else.


Can you please point me (and the readers) to this resource?
b) Why does the Python Foundation not ensure, that the python
source-code is directly compilable with MinGW?


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


Obvious: Courtesy [against the userbase needs]

Obvious: Consistency [same code-base across different compiler]
f) Are there any official (Python Foundation) statements /
rationales available, which explain why the MinGW compiler is
unsupported, although parts of the community obviously like to use
it?


Not to my knowledge.

[...] - (guess & comments)

thank you.
Why don't you solve this problem and produce a patched version of
Python that does what you want.
I'm not intrested in patching.

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

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


Then you have several options:

a) use a supported development environment


Requirement: "full open-source tool-chain".
b) do the work yourself to support MinGW
this would be not neccessary, as others do this work already.

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

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

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

above link found in this thread:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...f0444c467de525

[/REQUOTE]
c) pay someone else to do the work

But don't act like the volunteers who develop Python owe you a
version of Python that runs out of the box on MinGW. They don't,
anymore than you owe *me* a version of Python that runs out of the
box on MinGW.
I think Python is a serious Open Source System, driven by the Python
Foundation.

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

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

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

This does not increase my trust in python [e.g. as an exchange for JAVA].
Now why haven't *you* produced a version of Python that is directly
compileable with MinGW? Time's a-wasting.


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

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

-

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

..

--
http://lazaridis.com
Jul 18 '05 #5
[please check your news-client. For some reason, the tag "[EVALUATION]"
was removed]

-

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

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

I don't want to do "hacking".

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

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

-

copied from another answer:

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

..

--
http://lazaridis.com
Jul 18 '05 #6

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


[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 )

Jul 18 '05 #7
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
Michael Hoffman wrote:

Can you please point me (and the readers) to this resource?
http://www.cygwin.com/
Why don't you solve this problem and produce a patched version of
Python that does what you want.


I'm not intrested in patching.

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


And the core developers are not interested in doing more than what they
have already done without further help (e.g. from you). Surely you can
"not interested" as you have justified your own inaction through it.
This does not increase my trust in python [e.g. as an exchange for JAVA].
You cannot run all Java programs on an open source compiler, so I guess
it's an imperfect world for you. And to get GCJ to run on MinGW you have to
add a lot of patches.
Now why haven't *you* produced a version of Python that is directly
compileable with MinGW? Time's a-wasting.


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

[you should really avoid this tenor.


And you should avoid yours. Your sense of entitlement is palpable.
Python is not an open-source project of a few teenies. It's a serious
programming-language, which could be adopted by e.g. more
phone-manufacturers (after Nokia)]


The idea that MinGW support would affect that is laughable.
--
Michael Hoffman
Jul 18 '05 #8
Miki Tebeka wrote:
Hello Ilias,
d) Is it really neccessary that I dive into such adventures, to be able
to do the most natural thing like: "developing python extensions with
MinGW"?


Writing a setup.py and running
python setup.py build_ext --compiler=mingw3 2
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...00000000000000

-

"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..._mingw_modules

-

the solutions is possibly (copied from another answer):

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

..

--
http://lazaridis.com
Jul 18 '05 #9
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
"The Python Foundation could create an official sub-project to create an
automated build target based on the MinGW toolchain. I am sure that many
community members would be more than happy to contribute."


An "official sub-project" for something like this is not necessary. Identify
what needs to be done and create a patch, and it will be accepted if it is
a good patch.
--
Michael Hoffman
Jul 18 '05 #10

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

0
8666
marktang
by: marktang | last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However, people are often confused as to whether an ONU can Work As a Router. In this blog post, we’ll explore What is ONU, What Is Router, ONU & Router’s main usage, and What is the difference between ONU and Router. Let’s take a closer look ! Part I. Meaning of...
0
8597
by: Hystou | last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can effortlessly switch the default language on Windows 10 without reinstalling. I'll walk you through it. First, let's disable language synchronization. With a Microsoft account, language settings sync across devices. To prevent any complications,...
0
8853
tracyyun
by: tracyyun | last post by:
Dear forum friends, With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each protocol has its own unique characteristics and advantages, but as a user who is planning to build a smart home system, I am a bit confused by the choice of these technologies. I'm particularly interested in Zigbee because I've heard it does some...
1
6515
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM). In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new presenter, Adolph Dupré who will be discussing some powerful techniques for using class modules. He will explain when you may want to use classes instead of User Defined Types (UDT). For example, to manage the data in unbound forms. Adolph will...
0
5857
by: conductexam | last post by:
I have .net C# application in which I am extracting data from word file and save it in database particularly. To store word all data as it is I am converting the whole word file firstly in HTML and then checking html paragraph one by one. At the time of converting from word file to html my equations which are in the word document file was convert into image. Globals.ThisAddIn.Application.ActiveDocument.Select();...
0
4611
by: adsilva | last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
1
3033
by: 6302768590 | last post by:
Hai team i want code for transfer the data from one system to another through IP address by using C# our system has to for every 5mins then we have to update the data what the data is updated we have to send another system
2
2319
muto222
by: muto222 | last post by:
How can i add a mobile payment intergratation into php mysql website.
3
1992
bsmnconsultancy
by: bsmnconsultancy | last post by:
In today's digital era, a well-designed website is crucial for businesses looking to succeed. Whether you're a small business owner or a large corporation in Toronto, having a strong online presence can significantly impact your brand's success. BSMN Consultancy, a leader in Website Development in Toronto offers valuable insights into creating effective websites that not only look great but also perform exceptionally well. In this comprehensive...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.