Johann Hanne <pyt...@jf.hanne.name> added the comment:

> However, if the patch doesn't manage to make "configure;make" work, it's IMO 
> useless.
No, it's not, for two reasons:
- Embedding Python by just compiling/linking all the .c files in seems to be a 
major feature to me; so fixing compilation is useful for its own
- The win32 build system has never used "configure;make", but a Visual Studio 
project file; so why require it for a MinGW build?!

> Having "make install" work in some form would be desirable.
It would be a "nice to have". But there is one thing: The patch in its current 
form is trivial and next to impossible to break anything, yet I'm sure it's 
useful for a number of people. It's a result of work done within the company 
I'm working for. Submitting the patch does not have an immediate benefit for my 
company, it only will save me a (short!) amount of time because I will not to 
have to re-apply the patch for every new Python release. This time saving is 
the only justification for spending some working time to try to get it into the 
official tree.

As I have the feeling that all the discussion (which for the major part I used 
my spare time already...) is taking too much time, I will stop doing it as part 
of my job. As I'm privately interested in open source projects, I will continue 
to have a look at fixing "configure;make" for MinGW; but given my very limited 
spare time, this might take some weeks...

----------

_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue10615>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to