This might work smoothly for pure python modules, but.... When I tried to easy_install PIL on my mac, -- I think I remember correctly -- it failed to build because xcode was not available. When I installed xcode, it still would not build. So I tried a ports package and that did not work. I finally found a pre-compiled binary.
This whole area of builds and such is hazy to me - it was a struggle for me to get it working. I found lots of others who had the same problem. But maybe that was because they were just as unfamiliar with the territory as I was. I admit I don't fully understand this -- but if easy_install depends on the right compilers being available for non-pure-python packages, then the easy_install solution might be iffy at best. --greg-- On Mar 1, 5:22 pm, mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu> wrote: > I think what we really need is package easy_install with web2py. > > If your app needs PIL, it will check if it is there else call > easy_install. It would work with every python module. > > If anybody could send me a patch or an example to make this work > programmatically I will include it. > > Massimo > > On Mar 1, 3:08 pm, Greg Fuller <gregf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > It may benefit from a little glue code since there are different > > binaries for different platforms. To check for environment, import > > as, or try/except, etc. But maybe not - I could be making it more > > complex than it needs to be. I do that sometimes. > > > On Mar 1, 2:58 pm, Pedro <pedro...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I am not sure what point is discussed in here. What's the advantage of > > > including it in web2py if you can simply drop it in the modules > > > folder? > > > > On Mar 1, 9:52 pm, Greg Fuller <gregf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > You're right. I don't see this for production. But it would be nice > > > > to distribute a "fully" self contained trial version of an app for > > > > non-python-literate, non-developer, potential app users, to take for > > > > a spin on localhost. At any rate, it's something I'll explore on my > > > > own. > > > > > On Mar 1, 2:43 pm, Jason Brower <encomp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I just used pil today, and I don't think it's a good idea. I think if > > > > > we keep it as small as possible we can really make a powerful system. > > > > > A plugin system would be nice for non python OS's for example mac and > > > > > windows, it would be easier to use the import tools in python to get > > > > > PIL, for example. But in linux distros almost always have packages to > > > > > handle this stuff. You may get an uproar if you skipped the distros > > > > > way > > > > > of installing new python libraries. > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Jason > > > > > > On Sun, 2009-03-01 at 12:30 -0800, Greg Fuller wrote: > > > > > > True enough. Could probably do a plugin which would test for the > > > > > > environment, import as, etc. Then the work could still be shared > > > > > > without loading down the base. > > > > > > > But darnit, I was hoping all 842 members would raise their voices in > > > > > > unison for this idea. :) > > > > > > > --greg-- > > > > > > > On Mar 1, 2:15 pm, Yarko Tymciurak <yark...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
