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

[Ilias Lazaridis]

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

[Pat]

Fredrik Lundh wrote:

"Pat" wrote:

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? ;-)

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.

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

[Stephen Kellett]

In message <cu**********@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?
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
--
Stephen Kellett
Object Media Limited http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk
RSI Information: http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk/rsi.html

[Fredrik Lundh]

"Pat" wrote:

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>

[Steve Horsley]

Stephen Kellett wrote:

In message <cu**********@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]

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
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 <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Stephen Kellett wrote:

In message <cu**********@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?

[...] - (off-topic suggestions processing model)

Your suggestions were irrelevant to me.

Please avoid further off-topic posts.

..

--
http://lazaridis.com

[Ilias Lazaridis]

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 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.

..

--
http://lazaridis.com

[Ilias Lazaridis]

[Sorry, I'm to tired to read more posts today. I'll try to answer to
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.

..

--
http://lazaridis.com

[Stephen Kellett]

In message <cu**********@news.freedom2surf.net>, Steve Horsley
<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....

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

[Robert Kern]

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
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.

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]

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

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.

--
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

[Tim Peters]

[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". 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]

Pat wrote:

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]

In article <ma***************************************@python. org>,
Tim Peters <ti********@gmail.com> wrote:

[Ilias Lazaridis]
...

[David Fraser]

Pat wrote:

Actually, no. We ran into some issues with Python 2.4 that caused us
to return to Python 2.3.5. But I would really like to upgrade to
Python 2.4. So I started researching the subject before I did
anything.

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

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

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]

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?

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]

"jfj" <jf*@freemail.gr> wrote:

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

http://tinyurl.com/6xmfz

</F>

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Tim Peters wrote:

[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/bo...004-11-09.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!

..

--
http://lazaridis.com

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Mike Meyer wrote:

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

[...] - (twisting context and personal requirements)

sorry, no further comment.

..

--
http://lazaridis.com

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Duncan Booth wrote:

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.

..

--
http://lazaridis.com

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Robert Kern wrote:

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*.

..

--
http://lazaridis.com

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Robert Kern wrote:

Ilias Lazaridis wrote: [...]

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.

I do tolerate their behaviour.

I have to.

This is a public resource.
If you want one that does so tolerate your behaviour, you need to
keep looking.

I don't need to look.

They read, silently, deriving their conclusions.

About me.

About you.

About the python community.

[It is of course sad, that the "bad manners" / "missing focusation on
the context" of the actively writing part reflects directly to the whole
community.]

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.

ok

http://www.python.org/~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.

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.

I've not understood what you've written.

But I understand that it is not relevant to the topic.

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:

[...] - (processing model)

Your suggestions affecting my processing model are irrelevant.

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.

You webpage is a public resource.

And it was terribly outdated.

Now you have corrected your website.

Thank you.

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.

I'm not looking for such a community.

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.

[...] - (processing suggestions detected, not readed)

sorry, my processing is not the topic here.

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.

You can still give your answers within the main thread, thus they don't
get lost in this huge thread.

..

--
http://lazaridis.com

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Stephen Kellett wrote:

In message <cu**********@news.freedom2surf.net>, Steve Horsley
<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 thin I understand what you mean.

"Guido van Rossum is the project's lead developer. In recognition of
this role, he's sometimes jokingly called the Benevolent Dictator For
Life, or BDFL; the acronym is occasionally used in python-dev postings,
especially in a context such as "making that change will require a BDFL
pronouncement". In theory the BDFL makes all the decisions about what
goes in to Python and what doesn't. "
source: http://www.python.org/dev/process.html
I'm waiting for the "Who's Matz?" comment in comp.lang.ruby....

Stephen

..

--
http://lazaridis.com

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Simon Brunning wrote:

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:23:08 +0200, Ilias Lazaridis <il***@lazaridis.com> wrote:

(snip)

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

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

you can review this thread.

[EVALUATION] - E01: The Java Failure - May Ruby Helps?
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...6a2fbaf48046ac

Currently, I tend more to python, but I don't think that I can keep my
initial enthusiasm up.

..

--
http://lazaridis.com

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Stephen Kellett wrote:

In message <cu**********@usenet.otenet.gr>, Ilias Lazaridis
<il***@lazaridis.com> writes

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

your accousations are false.

please review my initial message.
Stephen

..

--
http://lazaridis.com

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Diez B. Roggisch wrote:

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

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

then:
"hey, this is just volunteer work"

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

Sometimes the core-team must provide infrastructure for volunteers to
contribute (as in this MinGW case).

http://lazaridis.com/core/product/case.html

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.

MinGW compatibility is not my need.

It is an community need.

..

--
http://lazaridis.com

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Stephen Kellett wrote:

In message <cu**********@usenet.otenet.gr>, Ilias Lazaridis
<il***@lazaridis.com> writes

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

please review them again.

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

Even an simple AI would detect:

there are other reasons behind the decision to not support the MinGW
open-source-complier directly out of the main source-code base.
Stephen

..

--
http://lazaridis.com

[Pat]

Fredrik Lundh wrote:

"Pat" wrote:

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."

In my defense, the threads I was referring to were prior to this thread
and did not include the two snippets that you've quoted. Besides,
there *was* additional work that needed to be done, specifically adding
the python23.dll or python24.dll to the \mingw\lib directory, as you
mentioned in one of your previous posts. Now, I'm not saying any of
this is rocket science, or isn't fairly easy to overcome. But it is a
definite stumbling block for someone like myself who is less fluent
with C that you are.
(now go read Ilias replies to those posts)
I'm not Ilias. He'll have to fend for himself. I just happen to have
a similar need to understand how to simplify the process of compiling
extensions for Python in light of the recent changes with Python 2.4.

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).
The code was not written by me. Specifically, we are making use of
PEAK and the "unofficial" GPL port of Qt for Windows (not the upcoming
GPL version from Trolltech). I just want it to work. ;-)

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. /.../"
Okay, I suppose I could have done a better job phrasing that. I should
have said something like "in my personal opinion, finding definitive,
documented information on the proper way to compile C extensions for
Python in light of the recent changes to Python 2.4 is a royal pain in
the ass." To that I would now add "But Fredrik Lundh thinks things
can't get much simpler, and if you ask him nicely he'll show you the
error of your ways." ;-)
now go download MinGW and figure out what's wrong with your C code.
It isn't my C code. I'm only including it as a dependency in my
project and trying to make the use of it by my users "simpler than
could ever be conceived by someone who thinks things can't get much
simpler". ;-)
if you get stuck, post the error messages, and I'm sure some c.l.pythoneer will help you sort it out.

Thanks. In all seriousness, you're posts have helped. When we ran
into snags we tried to compile cElementTree, got a bunch of errors,
figured out we hadn't copied python23.dll into /mingw/lib, and were
able to compile everything we needed. We still haven't tried that for
Python 2.4 yet, due to other constraints that we haven't worked out.
But I think we are getting closer and your help is greatly appreciated.
:-)

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

[Mike Meyer]

Ilias Lazaridis <il***@lazaridis.com> writes:

MinGW compatibility is not my need.
Then why do you waste so much effort whining about it not being given
to you?
It is an community need.

Based on the evidence at hand, this is a false statement.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

[bruno modulix]

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

there are other reasons behind the decision to not support the MinGW
open-source-complier directly out of the main source-code base.

Yes, of course. The reason is they are lying about their commitment to
open source. They are currently trying to port Python to .NET, and when
done they'll retire the current implementation and lock everyone to a
proprietary platform. I know it's hard to believe, but there are clues...

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

[Ilias Lazaridis]

bruno modulix wrote:

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

there are other reasons behind the decision to not support the MinGW
open-source-complier directly out of the main source-code base.

Yes, of course. The reason is they are lying about their commitment to
open source. They are currently trying to port Python to .NET, and when
done they'll retire the current implementation and lock everyone to a
proprietary platform. I know it's hard to believe, but there are clues...

impressive.

but things are much simpler.

..

--
http://lazaridis.com

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Mike Meyer wrote:

Ilias Lazaridis <il***@lazaridis.com> writes:

MinGW compatibility is not my need.

Then why do you waste so much effort whining about it not being given
to you?

It is an community need.

Based on the evidence at hand, this is a false statement.

<mike

MinGW compatibility is not [only] my need.

It is an community need [at least partially]

..

--
http://lazaridis.com

[bruno modulix]

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

bruno modulix wrote:

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

there are other reasons behind the decision to not support the MinGW
open-source-complier directly out of the main source-code base.

Yes, of course. The reason is they are lying about their commitment to
open source. They are currently trying to port Python to .NET, and
when done they'll retire the current implementation and lock everyone
to a proprietary platform. I know it's hard to believe, but there are
clues...

impressive.

but things are much simpler.

Could you be more prolific ?

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

[Adam DePrince]

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 13:29, Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

Mike Meyer wrote:

Ilias Lazaridis <il***@lazaridis.com> writes:

MinGW compatibility is not my need.

Then why do you waste so much effort whining about it not being given
to you?

It is an community need.

Based on the evidence at hand, this is a false statement.

<mike

MinGW compatibility is not [only] my need.

It is an community need [at least partially]

And herein lies the beauty of the noble meritocratic free software
movement.

If the community needs it, a member of said community has both complete
unfettered freedom and a supportive environment to make it. Any amount
of success at such an endeavor, even a feeble failure of an attempt,
would bring kudos the hero who attempts such a feat and possibly
organize unfathomable resources in the attendance of such a lofty goal.

Make us proud Ilias. But whatever you do, don't beg.
Adam DePrince

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Adam DePrince wrote:

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 13:29, Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

Mike Meyer wrote:

Ilias Lazaridis <il***@lazaridis.com> writes:

[...]MinGW compatibility is not [only] my need.

It is an community need [at least partially]
And herein lies the beauty of the noble meritocratic free software
movement.

If the community needs it, a member of said community has both complete
unfettered freedom and a supportive environment to make it.

Which is this "supportive environment"?
Any amount
of success at such an endeavor, even a feeble failure of an attempt,
would bring kudos the hero who attempts such a feat and possibly
organize unfathomable resources in the attendance of such a lofty goal.

Make us proud Ilias. But whatever you do, don't beg.
I don't beg.

If you think this, than please reread the thread (or at least the
root-trunk)
Adam DePrince

..

--
http://lazaridis.com

[Ilias Lazaridis]

bruno modulix wrote:

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

bruno modulix wrote:

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

there are other reasons behind the decision to not support the MinGW
open-source-complier directly out of the main source-code base.

Yes, of course. The reason is they are lying about their commitment
to open source. They are currently trying to port Python to .NET, and
when done they'll retire the current implementation and lock everyone
to a proprietary platform. I know it's hard to believe, but there are
clues...

impressive.

but things are much simpler.

Could you be more prolific ?

Please explain the word "prolific".

..

--
http://lazaridis.com

[Joe Francia]

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

Mike Meyer wrote:

Ilias Lazaridis <il***@lazaridis.com> writes:

MinGW compatibility is not my need.

Then why do you waste so much effort whining about it not being given
to you?

It is an community need.

Based on the evidence at hand, this is a false statement.

<mike

MinGW compatibility is not [only] my need.

It is an community need [at least partially]

You keep using that word "community". I do not think it means what you
think it means.

--
Soraia: http://www.soraia.com

[Tim Peters]

[Tim Peters]

Well, I'm a Director of the Python Software Foundation, and my view is
"the more platforms the merrier".
[Ilias Lazaridis]

I extract: "you are intrested, that the source-code-base compiles
directly with MinGW (and other compilers)".
Sure, I'm in favor of that. I'm also in favor of world peace, for
that matter <wink>.
Thus you should be intrested, that existent patches are incorporated
into the source-code-base.
That one doesn't follow. It follows that I'd like to see existing
patches _reviewed_, but not necessarily that I'd be in favor of
incorporating them if I had time to review them myself.
The suggested process ist: use of #defines whenever possible, to avoid
influence on the existent behaviour of the code.
Patches are reviewed on technical merit, balancing the tradeoffs;
#defines are actually discouraged when it's possible to do a thing
without introducing platform-specific #ifdefs. A problem is that a
patch won't get reviewed unless a volunteer does a review, and we've
got an increasing backlog of unreviewed patches because of that. The
most effective way for a person P to get their patch reviewed now is
for P to volunteer to review 5 other patches first. There are a few
Python developers who have promised, in return, to review P's patch
then.
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 don't know what that means, but plausible meanings sound futile. No
matter what I think "the community" needs, it's not going to happen
unless somebody else does the work: I can't tell anyone else what to
do. Heck, I don't even want to.

It sounds like you might want development driven by some kind of
marketing study. Nothing wrong with that, if so, but it's not how
open source works. An entity like the Python Business Forum would
presumably be more open to that tack (although I doubt the PBF would
have a natural interest in MinGW).

"Minority platforms" generally don't get far unless a truly dedicated
volunteer shows up. For example, Jason Tishler does an excellent job
on Python's Cygwin port, as does Andrew MacIntyre on OS/2 EMX, and
they've both done so for years. Nobody asked them to do this (AFAIK),
it's more that nobody could _stop_ them from doing it. They're
motivated by love of the platforms they take care of. In the absence
of anyone willing to pay someone else here, that's what's truly
needed.
...
This effort could be driven by the intrested community members (which
obviously exist).
Then maybe they need to be better organized, and/or more assertive in
pushing their interests. If someone is getting left behind here, they
should speak up on the python-dev list.

.... 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:
No such thing will happen -- forget that. For MinGW to be supported
forever, it's necessary and sufficient that a specific person
volunteer to support MinGW forever. If that person goes away, so does
the support they provided; it's the same story for Cygwin, and even
for Linux and native Windows. A difference is that Linux and native
Windows attract more than enough volunteers so that ongoing support
seems statistically certain. But, e.g., if Andrew MacIntyre went
away, I wouldn't bet on OS/2 EMX support continuing.
"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
"

If a specific person or group wants to volunteer to do all that, year
after year, they can start doing it today. The PSF won't do any of it
(although the PSF will fund and arrange to run the Python website, and
one way or another supply a bug tracker, source-control system, and
other infrastructure for keeping the Python project as a whole
running).

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Joe Francia wrote:

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

[...]

MinGW compatibility is not [only] my need.

It is an community need [at least partially]

You keep using that word "community". I do not think it means what you
think it means.

The community is everyone around python (including me at this moment).

We could call i userbase, too, but one needs not to be a actual user to
be a community member.

what do you think about?

..

--
http://lazaridis.com

[Adam DePrince]

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 14:25, Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

Adam DePrince wrote:

On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 13:29, Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

Mike Meyer wrote:
Ilias Lazaridis <il***@lazaridis.com> writes: [...]MinGW compatibility is not [only] my need.

It is an community need [at least partially]
And herein lies the beauty of the noble meritocratic free software
movement.

If the community needs it, a member of said community has both complete
unfettered freedom and a supportive environment to make it.

Which is this "supportive environment"?

You're on it. You drive a car? You have to treat it right to get what
you want, right? Same here. Ask correctly, and you will get your
answers.

Any amount
of success at such an endeavor, even a feeble failure of an attempt,
would bring kudos the hero who attempts such a feat and possibly
organize unfathomable resources in the attendance of such a lofty goal.

Make us proud Ilias. But whatever you do, don't beg.
I don't beg.

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

Many languages have the notion of the "rhetorical question." Also
known as the "loaded question." Your statement comes across partly as a
challenge, partly as a demand. In English, American English at least,
if you want to challenge somebody over a perceived failure ask them why
they didn't do it. English language culutres tend to be very
metrocratic. American history glorifies the self capable (and somewhat
violent) cowboy. Austrians have their love of "daisy cutting." I could
go on, but language carriers its own cultural barriers.

You didn't intent to, but you begging. Sure, you save some face by not
obviously groveling, but that only makes the slight worse. Now somebody
asked that you to read
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html. Read it in its
entirety, and come back later.

Now I have the *real* reason that they didn't do this. Nobody cares,
except for you. If you care enough, make the binary package yourself
and give it to the community. Take home the source, compile it, get it
working, and *you* can become the hero of the Python Foundation that
provides this service. Being that you have a need, if the binaries you
want don't just appear, it can either be assumed that you don't care
enough, or have the ability to do the work yourself.

Even if you fail miserably, come back, tell us what you tried, how you
failed, and the denizens of this site will happily (try to) guide you.

Good luck getting what you want by trolling.

Adam DePrince

[Grant Edwards]

On 2005-02-15, Adam DePrince <ad**@cognitcorp.com> wrote:

You didn't intent to, but you begging. Sure, you save some face by not
obviously groveling, but that only makes the slight worse. Now somebody
asked that you to read
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html. Read it in its
entirety, and come back later.

The wanker already stated that the "smart questions" essay
doesn't apply to him. I think he may be right: it only applies
to people who actually want questions answered and problems
solved. I don't think he wants to do/solve/answer anything. He
just wants to piss and moan about how nobody will jump when he
tells them to.

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I always liked FLAG
at DAY!!
visi.com

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Adam DePrince wrote:
[...]

If the community needs it, a member of said community has both complete
unfettered freedom and a supportive environment to make it.

Which is this "supportive environment"?

You're on it. You drive a car? You have to treat it right to get what
you want, right? Same here. Ask correctly, and you will get your
answers.

Your interpretation/definition of "asking correctly" is irrelevant to me.

[...]

Make us proud Ilias. But whatever you do, don't beg.

I don't beg.

Really, remember this:

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

Many languages have the notion of the "rhetorical question." Also

[...] - (faulty interpretations, suggesting processing model)

no comments.

..

--
http://lazaridis.com

[Mike Meyer]

Ilias Lazaridis <il***@lazaridis.com> writes:

Mike Meyer wrote:

It is an community need.

Based on the evidence at hand, this is a false statement.

It is an community need [at least partially]

Repeating a falsehood will not make it true.

Can you offer anything besides your own whining to back this claim up?

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

[Mike Meyer]

Ilias Lazaridis <il***@lazaridis.com> writes:

Joe Francia wrote:

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

[...]

MinGW compatibility is not [only] my need.

It is an community need [at least partially]

You keep using that word "community". I do not think it means what
you think it means.

The community is everyone around python (including me at this moment).

Then clearly, MingW is *not* a community need. I'm around Python. That
makes me part of the community by your definition. I have no need for
MingW (in fact, it doesn't run on anything I do development
on). Ergo, MingW is not a community need.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Mike Meyer wrote:

Ilias Lazaridis <il***@lazaridis.com> writes:

Mike Meyer wrote:

It is an community need.

Based on the evidence at hand, this is a false statement.

It is an community need [at least partially]

Repeating a falsehood will not make it true.

Can you offer anything besides your own whining to back this claim up?

please review my initial posting.

..

--
http://lazaridis.com

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Mike Meyer wrote:

Ilias Lazaridis <il***@lazaridis.com> writes:

Joe Francia wrote:

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

[...]

MinGW compatibility is not [only] my need.

It is an community need [at least partially]

You keep using that word "community". I do not think it means what
you think it means.

The community is everyone around python (including me at this moment).

Then clearly, MingW is *not* a community need. I'm around Python. That
makes me part of the community by your definition. I have no need for
MingW (in fact, it doesn't run on anything I do development
on). Ergo, MingW is not a community need.

I see.

Time to close this thread.

Nothing essential anymore.

..

--
http://lazaridis.com

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Tim Peters wrote:
[...] - (thorough comments)

Thank you very much for your thoroug comments.

..

--
http://lazaridis.com

[Ilias Lazaridis]

I'm 'closing' this thread now [means that I do possibly not respond
anymore to messages].

Thank you for your time and effort.

..

--
http://lazaridis.com

[Joe Francia]

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

Joe Francia wrote:

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
[...]

MinGW compatibility is not [only] my need.

It is an community need [at least partially]

You keep using that word "community". I do not think it means what you
think it means.

The community is everyone around python (including me at this moment).

We could call i userbase, too, but one needs not to be a actual user to
be a community member.

Well, I'm glad you cleared that up (even though you clearly missed the
"Princess Bride" reference). As a member *and* user in the Python
community, I hereby declare MinGW as unnecessary to the successful
continuation of Python. When I need to compile extensions on win32,
VS.NET works splendidly. (And gcc covers my FreeBSD & Linux extension
compiling needs - I have no unusual demands or expectations that the
Python "community" will support, say, the Intel C compiler on those
platforms).
what do you think about?

Oh, different things at different times, but it's usually not about
MinGW support for Python.

--
Soraia: http://www.soraia.com

[Terry Reedy]

In his 15 post on this thread within 5 hours,
"Ilias Lazaridis" <il***@lazaridis.com> wrote in message

Please explain the word "prolific".