Tom Loredo <lor...@astro.cornell.edu> added the comment: Ned-
I *did* run "make install"; everything I reported was about the situation *after* running "make install". In particular, I don't know any way to get access to IDLE without "make install"; what I described came from using the version in Applications/Python 2.6, which only appears after "make install". Okay, now I see my misunderstanding---the arch-dependent executables are in the framework only, and not linked in the installation prefix. Is that the intended behavior? I do put my framework in my PATH so I do have access to the executables; but I was expecting them to be in /usr/local/... as well. The version pointed to in /usr/local/... is the 32-bit version. This should be documented somewhere; I believe it changes previous behavior. It's not obvious to me what to expect here, which again argues that it should be documented. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue8089> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
