[PyQt] Request for a binary Mac installer

[William Kyngesburye]

On May 8, 2010, at 1:31 AM, Jan Haag wrote:

>>> Another issue is that building *for* the system Python 2.5 on OS X 10.5 is
>>> a bit difficult (impossible?) to do *on* OS X 10.6 (the SDKs don't work for
>>> this).  And switching Qt Cocoa/Carbon could be messy.  You'd need 4 Macs
>>> (or 2 if you can easily switch Qt's) to build the 4 combinations (not
>>> counting the oddball 10.4+2.3).
>> 
>> Does Apple ship Python 3 yet? Are developers starting to use it?
> It isn't shipped with 10.6 and besides doesn't work at all in 64bit
> mode. However, I personally keep a copy around for experimenting... I
> don't think there will be a serious demand for it just yet.
> 
Apple won't make major changes in the OS until a major version change anyways.  And if 3 isn't 64bit ready yet, with the long lead time in developing the next OS version (they're probably well into it already), I doubt we'll see 3 in OSX 10.7.

>> 
>> David
> 
> Besides all that, Sun's VirtualBox latest beta versions have
> experimental support for MacOS X guests, so one might attempt to use
> this to set up a sandbox for the build without using a full hardware mac...
> 
Ooh, that's a neat idea.  Then I can upgrade my Mini to Snow, which I've been putting off because of compilation needs ;)  (but that'll be hell on Time Machine backups, backing up multi GB disk images)

> The only "problem" with that wold be to run through PackageMaker twice
> to create the PyQt subpackage for each Python version, then again to
> create the metapackages, which can't be automated, as it seems (maybe
> with AppleScript, I don't know and I don't know AppleScript, for that
> matter...)
> 
Packagemaker has a CLI mode, so it can be automated.


-----
William Kyngesburye <kyngchaos*at*kyngchaos*dot*com>
http://www.kyngchaos.com/

"Oh, look, I seem to have fallen down a deep, dark hole.  Now what does that remind me of?  Ah, yes - life."

- Marvin