since YOU can package your distribution for a target environment (and are free to include what additional libraries your application for your client needs), it seems to me no reason to load down a base distribution with other than what is always used, and base development support.
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Greg Fuller <gregf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I've noticed a good number, and probably a sizable percentage, of > web2py applications are using PIL. Same with Django. I'm not sure > that's true of NumPy or any other external app. But I do see the > point. > > On Mar 1, 1:54 pm, Markus Gritsch <m.grit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Greg Fuller <gregf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > IMHO, I would be a great benefit to web2py to have PIL included if it > > > could be done with good success rate - not even 100%. Maybe it could > > > initially be included as an "experimental" capability or something. > > > > Massimo is right with his arguments agaimst inclusion. The next would > > come and would like to have NumPy or some other big Package included. > > Let's keep the binary package reasonably small, and not create a > > monster which would be hard to maintain. > > > > Markus > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
