I agree with you that PIL is very useful. The issue is we need to draw a line somewhere. Lots of people need additional packages and we cannot include them all. After all, why is PIL not included in Python?
If we were to include PIL in web2py we would have to take care of updates and binaries and we would have to guarantee backward compatibility of a third party package. Things will become un- manageble fast. This is not a straight NO. This is a NO for now and a call for comments. Massimo On Mar 1, 10:45 am, Greg Fuller <gregf...@gmail.com> wrote: > Web2Py is fantastic for packaging your application into a trial > version that can just be downloaded, unpacked and run - without > dependencies. No other framework I'm aware of can do this. > > The one snag is PIL. The applications I write usually require an > imaging library. I know that PIL is not pure python, and requires a > compile step because of the C code. But I have also been able to find > binary distributions for the platforms I've worked on - OS/X and > Windows. I would think there is also a Linux binary distribution > available. But, no problem there -- PIL has been available on the > Linux platforms I've deployed on (like webfaction). > > If I'm reading the PIL license correctly on pythonware.com, it can be > distributed. So, are there any technical difficulties or licensing > reasons why a PIL binaries should not be included in a distribution? > > Thanks, > > --greg-- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py Web Framework" group. To post to this group, send email to web2py@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/web2py?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
