RE: Python 2.4 killing commercial Windows Python development ?

Discussion in 'Python' started by Tony Meyer, Apr 12, 2005.

  1. Tony Meyer

    Tony Meyer Guest

    [problems with dependency on msvr71.dll snipped]

    One option is to create a Windows Python 2.4 installer that includes a
    Python not built with MSVC7 - for example gcc or MSVC6 - which doesn't have
    the dependency on mscvr71.dll. Both VC6 and gcc are feasible, although
    there may be a reasonable amount of work required.

    If the installer proved popular, then I'm sure the python-dev people could
    be convinced (for 2.5, perhaps) that there should be an official release of
    this type, much like there's a separate 64 bit installer available.
    (Assuming that patches could be submitted that made the build process as
    seamless as the existing one).

    This seems a much more achievable goal than anything involving a meeting
    with Microsoft...

    =Tony.Meyer
    Tony Meyer, Apr 12, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Tony Meyer

    A.B., Khalid Guest

    Tony Meyer wrote:
    > [problems with dependency on msvr71.dll snipped]
    >
    > One option is to create a Windows Python 2.4 installer that includes

    a
    > Python not built with MSVC7 - for example gcc or MSVC6 - which

    doesn't have
    > the dependency on mscvr71.dll. Both VC6 and gcc are feasible,

    although
    > there may be a reasonable amount of work required.
    >
    > If the installer proved popular, then I'm sure the python-dev people

    could
    > be convinced (for 2.5, perhaps) that there should be an official

    release of
    > this type, much like there's a separate 64 bit installer available.
    > (Assuming that patches could be submitted that made the build process

    as
    > seamless as the existing one).
    >
    > This seems a much more achievable goal than anything involving a

    meeting
    > with Microsoft...
    >
    > =Tony.Meyer



    Kindly note that the Python source distribution does include project
    files for building Python 2.4 with MSVC6. Add to that the fact that
    with pyMinGW[1] one can build yet another Windows distribution not
    dependent on mscvr71.dll and some of the logic about not upgrading to
    Python 2.4, IMHO, just goes away.

    An official release of installers for either or both versions would I
    think complicate matters: more choices translate to more confusion.
    Needless to say that extension authors (for Python 2.4) would then need
    to make two binaries for every extension they release for Python 2.4:
    one for the mscvr71.dll dependent Python distribution, and another one
    for the mscvrt.dll dependent version(s). This I think would hurt Python
    and its users.

    The solution is to have those that know enough to really need to build
    Python on their own according to their requirments. They would then
    have to deal with compiling the Python 2.4 extensions themselves, of
    course. But this would make things simple and hopefully address the
    needs of everyone.


    Regards,
    Khalid



    [1] pyMinGW:
    http://jove.prohosting.com/iwave/ipython/pyMinGW.html
    A.B., Khalid, Apr 12, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. A.B., Khalid wrote:

    > Kindly note that the Python source distribution does include project
    > files for building Python 2.4 with MSVC6. Add to that the fact that
    > with pyMinGW[1] one can build yet another Windows distribution not
    > dependent on mscvr71.dll and some of the logic about not upgrading to
    > Python 2.4, IMHO, just goes away.
    >
    > An official release of installers for either or both versions would I
    > think complicate matters: more choices translate to more confusion.
    > Needless to say that extension authors (for Python 2.4) would then need
    > to make two binaries for every extension they release for Python 2.4:
    > one for the mscvr71.dll dependent Python distribution, and another one
    > for the mscvrt.dll dependent version(s). This I think would hurt Python
    > and its users.
    >
    > The solution is to have those that know enough to really need to build
    > Python on their own according to their requirments. They would then
    > have to deal with compiling the Python 2.4 extensions themselves, of
    > course. But this would make things simple and hopefully address the
    > needs of everyone.


    This is all very true, and a fair point of what is achievable. It just
    seems unfortunate that a developer is required to get involved in C
    compilation and looking after all module dependencies, purely to use
    Python in a commercial environment.

    I write Java as my main language. It's what I'm paid to do, and I've
    spent the best part of the last 8 years doing so.

    Over the last couple of years, I've been toying with Python, and trying
    to find ways to integrate it with my daily routine - I now have a
    complete internal build system written with it, along with several
    utility scripts.

    I don't code C. I could probably blag it at a very slow pace, but I'm
    not going to be given time to play with it. We have some C developers,
    but again, no resource allocation will ever be made to compile a
    language that isn't used for the mainstream software we produce.

    All I'm trying to do is use python wherever I can without having to
    persuade those in power that it would be a valuable asset (as this would
    probably be a waste of breath in many circumstances), and yet I can't
    (from 2.4 at least) because it requires more time and cost to be allocated.

    I would guess from the responses so far that Python 2.4 just isn't used
    within commercially shipping products, or is quietly used by an product
    so as not to incur any legal wrath that might be found. Perhaps it isn't
    quite ready for what I want to achieve. I don't know.

    I just know that I am spending the rest of the day migrating back to 2.3
    where I will stay.

    Michael.
    Michael Kearns, Apr 12, 2005
    #3
  4. Tony Meyer

    Robin Becker Guest

    Michael Kearns wrote:
    ......
    > I would guess from the responses so far that Python 2.4 just isn't used
    > within commercially shipping products, or is quietly used by an product
    > so as not to incur any legal wrath that might be found. Perhaps it isn't
    > quite ready for what I want to achieve. I don't know.
    >
    > I just know that I am spending the rest of the day migrating back to 2.3
    > where I will stay.

    .....
    The switch to 2.4+msvc7.1 has been a success for MS as many developers now
    require both 6 & 7 to provide full coverage. Of course this wasn't a pythonic
    choice, but MS certainly encouraged the move by delivering free SDKs to key
    people. It's not really MS's fault; they want to advance and get revenue like
    everyone else; python has to follow or end up on a dying platform.

    People have mentioned the older v6 build scripts/tools still work. Last time I
    tried they seemed a bit out of date.

    -wondering where my paper tape editor is-ly yrs-
    Robin Becker
    Robin Becker, Apr 12, 2005
    #4
  5. Michael Kearns wrote:

    > I would guess from the responses so far that Python 2.4 just isn't used within commercially
    > shipping products


    that kind of unfounded hyperbole only makes you look silly.

    > I don't know.


    exactly. now calm down, and go read the replies to this thread again. or consult
    a lawyer, and make it clear to him that you're not actually *using* the MSVCR71
    component yourself, *and* that the Python application you are using (and passing
    on to your users) is adding significant and primary functionality to the MSCVR71
    library.

    </F>
    Fredrik Lundh, Apr 12, 2005
    #5
  6. Fredrik Lundh wrote:
    > Michael Kearns wrote:


    >>I would guess from the responses so far that Python 2.4 just isn't used within commercially
    >>shipping products

    >
    > that kind of unfounded hyperbole only makes you look silly.


    As no-one had replied that they had found it fine to use in a commercial
    sense, or pointed to other product that may use it, I'm not entirely
    sure how it makes me look any sillier than I normally do in real life.

    >>I don't know.

    >
    > exactly. now calm down, and go read the replies to this thread again. or consult
    > a lawyer, and make it clear to him that you're not actually *using* the MSVCR71
    > component yourself, *and* that the Python application you are using (and passing
    > on to your users) is adding significant and primary functionality to the MSCVR71
    > library.


    I apologise if my writing suggests a lack of calm. I have fully read the
    replies, and although there are many fine suggestions of shipping
    additional products, none seems to address the lack of legality
    regarding the windows distribution other than "It's not the Python
    developers problem". Again, if I paraphrased incorrectly, I'm sorry.

    As for consulting a lawyer, this is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. My
    usage of python in a commercial sense is as a small utility - a helper,
    if you will. It has no business value whatsoever, compared to the
    product that it ships with, and certainly does not warrant any
    investment regarding legal advice.

    I would agree that Python is adding significant value to the library.
    Unfortunately, the Microsoft Redistribution document, from what I read,
    does not allow an end-user to further redistribute the library. I am
    that end-user, of Python.

    The whole situation is already becoming far more work than if I'd used a
    different technology for what I had to achieve, and as such I have no
    desire to pursue it further. I'm once more running 2.3, and happy with that.

    With respect,

    Michael.
    Michael Kearns, Apr 12, 2005
    #6
  7. Michael Kearns wrote:

    > As for consulting a lawyer, this is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. My usage of python in a
    > commercial sense is as a small utility - a helper, if you will. It has no business value
    > whatsoever, compared to the product that it ships with, and certainly does not warrant any
    > investment regarding legal advice.


    without consulting a lawyer, how come you're so sure that the MS C support
    library is the only component you're using that may cause you legal problems?

    > Unfortunately, the Microsoft Redistribution document, from what I read, does not allow an end-user
    > to further redistribute the library.


    the REDIST document doesn't say anything like that, and neither does the
    EULA (at least not the copies I have in my properly licensed VS Enterprise
    installation).

    all it says is that when the Python developers ("you" in the EULA) redistributes
    the redistributable component as part of a Python distribution (the "licensee soft-
    ware" in the EULA), the developers must respect the original EULA wrt. this
    component. And when someone using Python is redistributing Python, that third
    part ("your distributors" in the EULA) must also respect the original EULA wrt.
    this component.

    (see section 3.1a in the EULA, and make sure you understand what the words
    "you", "licensee software", "redistributables" and "distributors" mean in that text)

    </F>
    Fredrik Lundh, Apr 12, 2005
    #7
  8. [Robin Becker]
    > People have mentioned the older v6 build scripts/tools still work. Last time I
    > tried they seemed a bit out of date.


    I routinely use the current CVS to build Py2.4 and Py2.5 with MSC6.
    It is effortless and I've had no problems.


    Raymond Hettinger
    Raymond Hettinger, Apr 13, 2005
    #8
  9. Tony Meyer

    Robin Becker Guest

    Raymond Hettinger wrote:
    > [Robin Becker]
    >
    >>People have mentioned the older v6 build scripts/tools still work. Last time I
    >>tried they seemed a bit out of date.

    >
    >
    > I routinely use the current CVS to build Py2.4 and Py2.5 with MSC6.
    > It is effortless and I've had no problems.
    >
    >
    > Raymond Hettinger

    ..... I wonder if it is maintained though.

    Last time I tried I think I had to move it one level up to be correct for some
    of the python/my extension locations, but perhaps I misremember.
    --
    Robin Becker
    Robin Becker, Apr 13, 2005
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    473
  2. Sting

    killing a process in ms windows - newbie

    Sting, Dec 28, 2003, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    332
    Richard Bos
    Dec 29, 2003
  3. Stephen Boulet

    killing a process in windows

    Stephen Boulet, Oct 17, 2003, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    331
    Stephen Boulet
    Oct 17, 2003
  4. Michael Kearns
    Replies:
    35
    Views:
    1,827
  5. Don Garrett

    Killing threads during development.

    Don Garrett, Jun 5, 2005, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    299
    Don Garrett
    Jun 5, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page