2008/12/16 "Martin v. Löwis" <mar...@v.loewis.de>:
>>> Try installing Python 2.6.1 "for all users".
>>
>> Could you clarify why that's needed?
>
> I didn't say it's needed. I said that he should try that, perhaps it
> helps.
>
>> One thing we noticed (I'm not sure has this been yet submitted to
>> bugs.python.org yet) was that installing packages created with Python
>> 2.5 to Python 2.6 failed unless Python was in %PATH% [1].
This must have actually been caused by the Python26.dll not being in
PATH. Unfortunately I don't have all the details since these problems
didn't bite me personally, but I assume this has been a single user
installation.
> In general, that's not supported at all. You will have to rebuild all
> packages for Python 2.6, unless they are pure-python packages (in
> which case PATH should be irrelevant).
>
> If the .pyd files would have loaded, Python would have complained that
> they originate from the wrong Python version.
The question was about a pure-python package. Based on my very limited
knowledge on .pyd files they aren't related to the problem.
>> Another pretty severe problem was that installers created with Python
>> 2.6 didn't work at all with older versions [2].
>
> That's not a bug, either. It has been that way since Python 1.4 or so:
> .pyd files built for X.Y won't work for X.(Y+1), and vice versa.
>
> It seems that you mean something specific with the word "installer";
> I think you should elaborate what precisely you are referring to.
Sorry for not being explicit. With "installer" I meant the binary
Windows installer you create with command "python setup.py
bdist_wininst". In the past we've been able to use
"package-version.win32.exe" files created with Python 2.5 on older
version, but that doesn't seem to be case with 2.6.
Cheers,
.peke
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
