> Thomas Heller wrote:
>> Bugs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>>Any luck on finding anyone to take over py2exe development Thomas?
>>>It's a GREAT project and would be a shame to see it fall into
>>>obsolescence.
>> No, nobody stepped up (yet).
>> Thomas
Bugs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What d
What do you think of the idea of putting both py2exe AND py2app under
the same umbrella? I don't know what the status of py2app is or who
maintains it but I was thinking that it would be ideal if the 2
utilities could share code, ideas, protocols, etc. Seems like this
synergy and consistency
Bugs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Any luck on finding anyone to take over py2exe development Thomas?
> It's a GREAT project and would be a shame to see it fall into
> obsolescence.
No, nobody stepped up (yet).
Thomas
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Any luck on finding anyone to take over py2exe development Thomas? It's
a GREAT project and would be a shame to see it fall into obsolescence.
Thomas Heller wrote:
[snip]
>
> Is anyone interested in taking over the maintainance, documentation, and
> further development?
>
[snip]
--
http://mai
Scott David Daniels wrote:
> Steve Holden wrote:
>
>> Thomas Heller wrote:
>>
>>> I'm slowly getting tired maintaining py2exe. It is far from perfect,
>>> although it has interesting features (I would say).
>
>
>> Ignoring all the philosophical questions I'd like to thank you for all
>> your h
Steve Holden wrote:
>Ignoring all the philosophical questions I'd like to thank you for all
>your hard work on py2exe over the years, which has benefited the Windows
>Python community immeasurably.
>
>regards
> Steve
>
>
here here! I have just begun my trek into Python and am already relying
Bugs wrote:
> Whereas py2exe can create an executable that NEVER writes any files
> out to the filesystem, they are loaded instead directly from the
> executable?
> If so then that's a major difference and IMHO the py2exe method is
> superior.
To do this, py2exe uses a manually rewritten version
Simon John wrote:
> And if they want to use UPX, well that's up to them, but I've had some
> problems with it and don't particularly like the thought of runtime
> decompression and the two process thing.
UPX compression is totally optional, and it is even disabled by default. For
the log, I have
James Stroud wrote:
>> What about PyInstaller that was announced the other day? The feature
>> list looks great, and it appears the developers intend to maintain
>> and enhance the program indefinitely.
> ...
>>
>> http://pyinstaller.hpcf.upr.edu/pyinstaller
>
> That's one short "indefinitely":
>
Steve Holden wrote:
> Thomas Heller wrote:
>
>> I'm slowly getting tired maintaining py2exe. It is far from perfect,
>> although it has interesting features (I would say).
> Ignoring all the philosophical questions I'd like to thank you for all
> your hard work on py2exe over the years, which h
On Sep 20, 2005, at 5:44 PM, Steve Holden wrote:
> Thomas Heller wrote:
>
>> I'm slowly getting tired maintaining py2exe. It is far from perfect,
>> although it has interesting features (I would say).
>> The problem, apart from the work, is that it is good enough for me
>> - I
>> can do everyt
Thomas Heller wrote:
> I'm slowly getting tired maintaining py2exe. It is far from perfect,
> although it has interesting features (I would say).
>
> The problem, apart from the work, is that it is good enough for me - I
> can do everything that I need with it. But I assume I use far less
> liba
Thomas Heller wrote:
[snip]
>
> Is anyone interested in taking over the maintainance, documentation, and
> further development?
>
> Should py2exe be integrated into another, larger, package? Pywin32
> comes to mind, but also Philip Eby's setuptools (that's why I post to
> distutils-sig as well).
Steve M wrote:
[snip]
> * Dual packaging mode:
>* Single directory: build a directory containing an executable plus
> all
> the external binary modules (.dll, .pyd, .so) used by the program.
>* Single file: build a single executable file, totally
> self-contained,
> which runs without any
James Stroud wrote:
[snip]
> > http://pyinstaller.hpcf.upr.edu/pyinstaller
> That's one short "indefinitely":
>
> Not Found
> The requested URL /pyinstaller was not found on this server.
> Apache/2.0.53 (Fedora) Server at pyinstaller.hpcf.upr.edu Port 80
It seems that the URL is http://pyinstall
On Tuesday 20 September 2005 11:43, Steve M wrote:
> What about PyInstaller that was announced the other day? The feature
> list looks great, and it appears the developers intend to maintain and
> enhance the program indefinitely.
...
>
> http://pyinstaller.hpcf.upr.edu/pyinstaller
That's one shor
What about PyInstaller that was announced the other day? The feature
list looks great, and it appears the developers intend to maintain and
enhance the program indefinitely.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/browse_thread/thread/b487056b7b1f99bc/583da383c1749d9f?q=ANN&rnum=1&hl=en#58
I'm slowly getting tired maintaining py2exe. It is far from perfect,
although it has interesting features (I would say).
The problem, apart from the work, is that it is good enough for me - I
can do everything that I need with it. But I assume I use far less
libaries than other Python programmer
18 matches
Mail list logo
