On 26/03/2009 9:05 AM, Mark Hammond wrote:
On 25/03/2009 11:41 PM, John Machin wrote:
This all sounds good. I presume that "this version of distutils" means
the 2.6.2/3.1 version.
Yep.
In the meantime, until 2.6.2 final is released, is my suggestion of
using Python 2.5 to build installers
On 25/03/2009 11:41 PM, John Machin wrote:
This all sounds good. I presume that "this version of distutils" means
the 2.6.2/3.1 version.
Yep.
In the meantime, until 2.6.2 final is released, is my suggestion of
using Python 2.5 to build installers reasonable?
Yep.
Is there a better appro
On 25/03/2009 10:32 PM, Mark Hammond wrote:
On 25/03/2009 11:06 AM, John Machin wrote:
It would appear that the safest cover-most-bases option for a
developer/packager
of pure-Python packages (especially one intended to be runnable on older
versions of Python, some as far back as 2.1) is to use
On 25/03/2009 11:06 AM, John Machin wrote:
It would appear that the safest cover-most-bases option for a developer/packager
of pure-Python packages (especially one intended to be runnable on older
versions of Python, some as far back as 2.1) is to use Python 2.5 to make the
bdist_wininst (the exe
Martin v. Löwis v.loewis.de> writes:
>
> > 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 olde
> 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
2008/12/16 "Martin v. Löwis" :
>>> 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)
> I noted, also, than, in some cases, Python26.dll is not copied in
> %WINDIR%\system32
> After that, external softs don't find the DLL.
Right. Only in "for all users" installations, python26.dll is put into
system32. In a "just for me" installation, the user is not expected to
have permissions to
Hi!
I noted, also, than, in some cases, Python26.dll is not copied in
%WINDIR%\system32
After that, external softs don't find the DLL.
But it's a detail, because it's easy to copy the DLL with install
scripts.
@-salutations
--
Michel Claveau
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pytho
Hi!
Thank you very much for your answer. I appreciate many to receive an
answer of somebody as you.
But I, always, install Python 2.6.1 "for all users" (and, on Vista, UAC
is always deactivated).
After some tests, the problem seems a bit more complex: call the
Python-COM-servers run OK, fr
>> 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 wit
2008/12/15 "Martin v. Löwis" :
>> I am very disappointed. Help me, please.
>
> Try installing Python 2.6.1 "for all users".
Could you clarify why that's needed? Link to a relevant bug report or
something similar is enough. We've got some weird problems installing
Python packages (win32.exe) on Wi
> I am very disappointed. Help me, please.
Try installing Python 2.6.1 "for all users".
Regards,
Martin
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Hi, all!
I have several softwares using Python+PyWin32, often as COMèserver. Ok
with Python 2.5.x. I want migrate to Python 2.6.
But when I install python-2.6.1.msi + pywin32-212.win32-py2.6, my softs
don't run.
Tried on five machines (two XP & three Vista).
But... if I install python-2.6.
14 matches
Mail list logo
