>  Regarding the comments about which build system, I agree with Mark that we
need to 
>  converge on one.  I won't prejudice the choice.  Mark obviously has 99% of
the 
>  history on this, but Todd mentions some gaps that he is interested in.

Just to clarify, I believe we are no longer talking about just a *build*
system, but instead a *packaging* system, along with some kind of commitment
to create binaries using that system?  Specifically, the script of mine and
I assume the pyxpcomext project use the standard build process.

Even more specifically, to have solved your (Paul's) problem, this system
must also be capable of generating binaries for Windows, Mac and Linux, and
will presumably need access to that hardware.  Its is probably *not* enough
to simply confirm (say) Mac builds work, then assume they will continue to
work in the future, and assuming people could simply make their own using
that process.  As we saw, that would have fallen over at the first hurdle
(the building of it) in the case of Paul.  So I guess I don't see exactly
what deliverables you are expecting for this bounty, and how they would have
saved your bacon had they been put in place 12 months ago.

In general though, I've absolutely no problem with pyxpcomext being the
official package.  I was a little dissapointed to have not heard about the
effort and that opportunities aren't taken to collaborate on things ("not
invented here" syndrome?).  Certainly pyxpcom can only benefit from having a
functioning, supported distribution.

Cheers,

Mark


_______________________________________________
pyxpcom mailing list
pyxpcom@[...].com
To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs