On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:00 PM, bartc <b...@freeuk.com> wrote: > Just to get the ball rolling, they don't need to be perfect. Building > python.exe would be a useful first step, even if it fails to run for many > other reasons.
Actually, it's more useful if it completely fails to build. As I was porting one particular app to OS/2, I spent about a day just getting the configure script to succeed, upon which getting it to compile took maybe five minutes, and getting it to run correctly with all subcomponents was maybe another hour. The earlier it fails, the better. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
