Re: python3.2m installed as (additional) binary

2011-02-27 Thread andrew cooke
[Sorry I clicked the wrong button so I think my prev reply went only to Tom] Thanks. Yes, they're hard linked. And the bug report mentions PEP 3149 which says that "m" means --with-pymalloc was used http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3149/ Cheers, Andrew -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/lis

Re: python3.2m installed as (additional) binary

2011-02-27 Thread Tom Zych
Tom Zych wrote: > andrew cooke wrote: >> -rwxr-xr-x 2 root root 7368810 2011-02-27 13:03 /usr/local/bin/python3.2 >> -rwxr-xr-x 2 root root 7368810 2011-02-27 13:03 /usr/local/bin/python3.2m > I suspect the "m" name is what gets built and the "no m" is an alias for > backwards-compatibility. Not s

Re: python3.2m installed as (additional) binary

2011-02-27 Thread Tom Zych
andrew cooke wrote: > I just downloaded, built and altinstalled Python3.2 on Linux x64. I noticed > that in /usr/local/bin I have two identical (says diff) binaries called > Python3.2 and Python3.2m. Is this expected? I can find very little > reference to them apart from a short discussion in