[EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Sorry, I'm breaking my promise to post only once to this thread.

I'm breaking my 'promise' to close this thread.

But I've found the ultimate recipe to resolve all issues of this and
other similar threads:

Please read

http://nobelprize.org/medicine/educational/pavlov/

and then do something useful

I don't think that this would change the disastrous communication
behaviour of the python community [1]. For sure it has not changed yours.

And I don't think that this would change anything on the huge amounts of
off-topic posts [including yours, and of course my reply to yours].

This thread proofs simply the inability of this community [1] to focus
on a simple essence.

-

[1] community: the publically writing, within c.l.python

..

 

[Stephen Kellett]

This thread proofs simply the inability of this community [1] to focus
on a simple essence.

Incorrect analysis. This thread proves that you have no concept of how
to interact with the community. If you had done what many people asked
you to do, which is do some work yourself, then ask questions about the
few answers you didn't discover yourself, you would have got lots of
helpful answers. You were told this many times by many people. Also on
the odd occasion someone did proffer some on-topic advice, sometimes in
long articles that must have taken some time to produce you'd dismiss
the article with "It is not on topic, I have not read it". How could you
know if it is not on topic if you don't read it? Apart from the gross
rudeness in such an attitude it demonstrates your arrogance, selfishness
and utter contempt for those replying to you.

And then you have the gall to blame your failure on others...

Next you'll be telling me the world is flat and held up by an infinite
array of tortoises.

 

[Nick Vargish]

This thread proofs simply the inability of this community [1] to focus
on a simple essence.

Many communities extend a sort of "provisional membership" to new
arrivals, and grant newcomers the same respect and courtesy that
established members recieve. I make this distinction to point out that
you are not a member of the Python community simply because you posted
in a community newsgroup, but a newcomer with provisional status.
I don't speak for the Python community, but from the consistent nature
of the responses to your posts, it looks like your provisional
membership has been revoked.

Secondly, when two parties disagree about matters of etiquette, the
party that is new to the community is almost certainly the one who has
erred.

I think you could undo the damage you have done by spending some time
here, and learning that this is a community of intelligent, friendly,
humorous, and insightful people. Come with suggestions, and not
demands. Show us how you would like a community to behave, instead of
acting like we owe you something.

That's how we make the world a better place.

Nick

 

[John Lenton]

Next you'll be telling me the world is flat and held up by an infinite
array of tortoises.

no, of course not! It's an iterator.

--
John Lenton ([email protected]) -- Random fortune:
Test-tube babies shouldn't throw stones.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCFPFsgPqu395ykGsRAno9AKCKZmQoBMkFmh/UQiSDNNMvUlmPrACfcGbz
GZni2Vxacm3583bTa6vfZ0k=
=+y8J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Stephen Kellett]

course he'd still have to read docs and learn how to use it.

Yeah - one guy in c.l.ruby wrote a reply that must have taken minimum 30
minutes. Really detailed. Lots of people thanked him for it. Ilias
dissed the whole post with "I have not read it, it is not on topic".

Moderately on topic (not Python, but programming at least): The other day
I was talking to someone and I commented on how odd it is to write a
library, and *still* have to learn how to use it correctly. As the
author, at least I can change it as I learn more, but even so, I have to
learn how to use it; even as the author I am not imbued magically with
expert status.

Indeed. I often find myself going back to a library I wrote some time
ago which I haven't had to interact with and then looking for the
existing code that interacts with the library to see how best to use it.
I think its a bit like going back to a book after a few years. Its worth
returning because you will have forgotten some of what was so good first
time around.

Stephen

 

[Peter Maas]

Thanks. I showed this to my daughter, who enjoyed the game, and explained
your point re Pavlov posting, and about Pavlov advertising, etc.

Fine that at least one person benefitted from my post I came across
this when I browsed through the Lazaridis thread which was - if for
nothing else - good for some laughs.

But at the same time I felt uncomfortable to see how many bright
Pythoneers cared to give well thought, helpful and friendly answers
to somebody who was acting unpolite and kind of stupid, even mechanical.
This newsgroup is used to be helpful to newbies and Lazaridis was
ringing the newbie bell.

Perhaps we will soon see a triumphant publication with the title
"Ilias Lazaridis - the ELIZA of the 21st century. A milestone towards
the perfect Turing test"

 

[David Fraser]

This thread proofs simply the inability of this community [1] to focus
on a simple essence.

Incorrect analysis. This thread proves that you have no concept of how
to interact with the community. If you had done what many people asked
you to do, which is do some work yourself, then ask questions about the
few answers you didn't discover yourself, you would have got lots of
helpful answers. You were told this many times by many people. Also on
the odd occasion someone did proffer some on-topic advice, sometimes in
long articles that must have taken some time to produce you'd dismiss
the article with "It is not on topic, I have not read it". How could you
know if it is not on topic if you don't read it? Apart from the gross
rudeness in such an attitude it demonstrates your arrogance, selfishness
and utter contempt for those replying to you.

And then you have the gall to blame your failure on others...

Next you'll be telling me the world is flat and held up by an infinite
array of tortoises.

Actually I suspect Ilias is trying to carry out his own sort of 'survey'
on how various communities respond to questions asked in the kind of way
he asked them ... See his web site.

David

 

[Stephen Kellett]

Perhaps we will soon see a triumphant publication with the title
"Ilias Lazaridis - the ELIZA of the 21st century. A milestone towards
the perfect Turing test"

I've got to admit that for a large proportion of the time interacting
(if that is the word) with him I thought I was the butt of a clever AI
joke. I've finally come to the conclusion that there is a real, if
seriously dysfunctional, person behind the communications.

If I knew more about the AI subject arena AND had more time on my hands
I'd try to write an IlliasBot to see how far I got before I was found
out. But I'm way too busy, so someone else will have to do it. I just
hope they do it in Python or Ruby so that these languages get more
publicity.

Stephen

 

[Stephen Kellett]

Actually I suspect Ilias is trying to carry out his own sort of
'survey' on how various communities respond to questions asked in the
kind of way he asked them ... See his web site.

Its as unreadable as his network news postings. One of the first things
I did was check out his website. I didn't gain a lot as it is written in
his typical automaton style. It actively discourages you from engaging.
Thats quite an achievement for a static piece of text.

Stephen

 

[Neil Hodgson]

Peter Maas:

Perhaps we will soon see a triumphant publication with the title
"Ilias Lazaridis - the ELIZA of the 21st century. A milestone towards
the perfect Turing test"

<ILI>as la<ZA>ridis

Neil

 

[Ilias Lazaridis]

[this is a summary of a private conversation that I had with the
developer of the phMinGW. It contains just my comments. I've send
additionally a CC via email (private-to-public switch notification)]

-

A.B., Khalid wrote:
[...]

Khalid,

first of all I like to thank you for the efforts you have taken to
provide pyMinGW to the python community.

I would like to assist you with your efforts, see below.

If passing all the regression tests of the official Windows Python
distribution is an indication of the quality of patch-- and pyMinGW
patched and MinGW built Python does pass all of them-- then one is
inclined to say that pyMinGW is a good patch.

=> {pyMinGW is a good patch}

The reason why it is, on the other hand, not included in the official
distribution is threefold.

1. Contrary to what many might imagine, I don't think enough people
use MinGW to frankly justify any extra effort beyond pyMinGW.

The defined "extra effort" is the effort to provide the patches for the
main source-code base?

If you can send me an email of how to do this, I would take this effort.

of course I must first know, that the python-team would accept those
patches (technical applicability provided).

Thus this can wait, until an official response.

2. Given number 1 above, this patch, I believe, and I could be
mistaken, must not rush to be included in Python's core;

Of course you are right.

people like your esteemed person should test it (note that it is
designed not to interfere with your trusted and working official
Python, if any);

=> {trusted and working official python}

: it is

only when enough people do such testing that there will be a case for
it to be included in Python's core.

I agree with you.

If you are willing to extend your project, thus the intrested community
members can collaborate, I would like to assist you to do so.

I would try to take away all setup efforts from you.

3. Finally. there is nothing wrong with third-party patches if they
get the job done, which I believe is the case with pyMinGW.

You have stated above: "trusted and working official python"

The main goal would be, to get a "trusted and working official python"
based on MinGW, _within_ the official source-code-base.

The secondary goal would be, to get a "trusted and working official
python" based on MinGW, _with_ a very close to the official
source-code-base (possibly with just one #define).

-

Please contact me vial email if you are intrested.

Regards, Khalid

Best Regards,

ILIAS LAZARIDIS

-
-
-

After some comments, [which did not show to me an intrested of making
the above happen (which is fully in the developers rights)], I've
simplified my suggestions in the following message:


"
thank you for your comments.

I will express my suggestion more practically

* as a first step, I would setup a pyMinGW mailinglist
* intrested people can come together an communicate
* as a second step, I would setup an SVN
* intrested projects could get your patch via SVN
* as a third step, I would find intrested contributors
* which would help testing
* which would help you with coding

All this could happen without (or with very low) efforts for you.
"

-
-
-

I got no answer.

-
-
-

..

 

[Josef Meile]

It looks like here the only worth words are yours. Didn't
you close this thread?

I will refresh your mind with your own unpolite way:

"""
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
[...]

closing thread
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/msg/f2ae9cdbe16676d1
"""

Anyway, I will add some comments:

The defined "extra effort" is the effort to provide the patches for the
main source-code base?

If you can send me an email of how to do this, I would take this effort.

Good for you.

of course I must first know, that the python-team would accept those
patches (technical applicability provided).

There is no guaranty. Did you forget the reply from Tim Peters:

> [...] A problem is that a
> patch won't get reviewed unless a volunteer does a review, and we've
> got an increasing backlog of unreviewed patches because of that. The
> most effective way for a person P to get their patch reviewed now is
> for P to volunteer to review 5 other patches first. There are a few
> Python developers who have promised, in return, to review P's patch
> then.

So, you will have to review some patches first.

>Ilias> Now, can you please tell me the process I have to follow to
>Ilias> suggest the following (to the PSF or to the programmers or to
>Ilias> the decision takers),possibly to get at least a vote on it:

>Tim> No such thing will happen -- forget that. For MinGW to be
>Tim> supported forever, it's necessary and sufficient that a specific
>Tim> person volunteer to support MinGW forever. If that person goes
>Tim> away, so does the support they provided; it's the same story for
>Tim> Cygwin, and even for Linux and native Windows.

So, it is not just making the patch. You will have to compromise to
support it and not just go away.


Regards,
Josef

 

[Ilias Lazaridis]

It looks like here the only worth words are yours. Didn't
you close this thread?

yes, but when reviewing again I found this lack [created by myself due
to private conversation].

I will refresh your mind with your own unpolite way:

I find this very polite [to notify conversation partners instead of
letting them wait for an answer].

"""
Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
[...]

closing thread
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/msg/f2ae9cdbe16676d1
"""

Anyway, I will add some comments:

[...]

The first step is to make a pyMinGW project.

If one is intrested, he has possibly more luck [than I had] to convince
the author of pyMinGW.

Good luck.

..

 

[JanC]

Robert Kern schreef:

And yet there is not one company that has someone devoted full-time to
developing Python.

Except for 'future Python' aka PyPy...
<http://codespeak.net/pipermail/pypy-dev/2004q4/001696.html>

 

[A.B., Khalid]

The first step is to make a pyMinGW project.

You are mistaken. The first steps are the following:

1) Realizing that a project _must_ start not because you want it to,
but because those who are willing to work on it think it is worth the
extra effort for it to.

2) Realizing that what best scratches your back is non other than your
own nails. No one is going to do any extra effort for you (or anyone
else for that matter) if they have some good reason not to. And both
the author of pyMinGW and Tim have already given enough reasons for
those who wondered why there is no official Python support for the
MinGW compiler earlier in this very thread.

3) Realizing that there _is_ already a project called pyMinGW! That it
does not fit your requirements-- whatever these maybe-- is an
altogether different issue. The fact of the matter remains that a
project _does_ exist, one which people (including myself) do in fact
use; and because it does exist there is no reason to "make" it.

If one is intrested, he has possibly more luck [than I had] to convince
the author of pyMinGW.

Of what? To make pyMinGW? To do extra work to your liking that was
shown to be nnnecessary especially when pyMinGW can currently get the
job done? Let alone the free compiler available for all to use?

Whether you realize it or not, those who are interested will download
pyMinGW and will test it and they will use it if they find it useful.
It is their choice to do so. It is apparent that not only have you not
done that, but that you also seem not interested in doing so. That too
is your choice. I suspect that no one is going to lose sleep over
either choice. I hope I don't come across as condescending, which I
hope I never am, but I know I won't. Life goes on.


Khalid

 

[? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}]

Duncan Booth wrote: [...]

It is GPL licensed with an amendment which prevents the GPL
spreading to other open source software with which it is linked.
"In accordance with section 10 of the GPL, Red Hat, Inc. permits
programs whose sources are distributed under a license that complies
with the Open Source definition to be linked with libcygwin.a
without libcygwin.a itself causing the resulting program to be
covered by the GNU GPL."

If I understand this right, I cannot produce commercial software with
the cygwin toolset.

You cannot produce proprietary software with that toolset.

 

[Ilias Lazaridis]

You are mistaken. The first steps are the following:

[...] - (nonrelevant comments)

3) Realizing that there _is_ already a project called pyMinGW! That it
does not fit your requirements-- whatever these maybe-- is an
altogether different issue. The fact of the matter remains that a
project _does_ exist, one which people (including myself) do in fact
use; and because it does exist there is no reason to "make" it.

[...]

I've already understood your viewpoint.

I've realized, that there is a single-person-centric project
"pyMinGW" which does not encourage collaboration (due to missing public
resources like mailinglist).

My requirements about an open-source project (or sub-project) are very
simple:
a communication resource,
a code-repository,
an issue-tracking-system.

I've suggested you to transform your personal project to a collaborative
project, starting with an dedicated mailinglist etc.:

"
thank you for your comments.

I will express my suggestion more practically

* as a first step, I would setup a pyMinGW mailinglist
* intrested people can come together an communicate
* as a second step, I would setup an SVN
* intrested projects could get your patch via SVN
* as a third step, I would find intrested contributors
* which would help testing
* which would help you with coding

All this could happen without (or with very low) efforts for you.
"

-

You have the right to refuse this.

I (and any other reader) have the right to derive our conclusions about
you and the reasons that you refuse a _real_ collaborative work.

..

..

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?=]

My questions:

It appears that nobody has answered the questions, yet.

a) Why does the Python Foundation not provide additionally a binary
version, compiled with MinGW or another open-source compiler?

We don't have the resources to do that.

b) Why does the Python Foundation not ensure, that the python
source-code is directly compilable with MinGW?

In the past, we did not do that because we did not know how to do it.
With Python 2.4.1, we now had a contribution that should allow direct
compilation of extensions using MingW.

c) Why are the following efforts not _directly_ included in the python
source code base?

http://jove.prohosting.com/iwave/ipython/pyMinGW.html

I believe this was because it was never contributed to Python.

d) Is it really neccessary that I dive into such adventures, to be able
to do the most natural thing like: "developing python extensions with
MinGW"?

http://starship.python.net/crew/kernr/mingw32/Notes.html

No. These instructions are outdated.

e) Is there any official statement available regarding the msvcr71.dll
and other MS licensing issues?

[see several threads "[Python-Dev] Is msvcr71.dll re-redistributable?"]

http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-February/thread.html

No, there isn't.

f) Are there any official (Python Foundation) statements / rationales
available, which explain why the MinGW compiler is unsupported, although
parts of the community obviously like to use it?

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/msg/dc3474e6c8053336

The official statement is that the MingW compiler is supported, indeed.

Regards,
Martin

 

[Ilias Lazaridis]

It appears that nobody has answered the questions, yet.


We don't have the resources to do that.

Should a professional developer take python serious?

I mean, if the team does not manage at least the foundation of a
multi-target automated-build-process?

[targets need not to be supported directly by the python team. They
could be added/managed/maintained by community members]

In the past, we did not do that because we did not know how to do it.
With Python 2.4.1, we now had a contribution that should allow direct
compilation of extensions using MingW.

I'm refering to compile the main python source-code with MigGW.

[As a result, compilation of extensions under MinGW becomes trivial]

I believe this was because it was never contributed to Python.

ok

You should possibly engourage the author to create an collaborative project.

No. These instructions are outdated.

ok

[the author has placed a remark now, avoiding this way further
missunderstandings.]

e) Is there any official statement available regarding the msvcr71.dll
and other MS licensing issues?

[see several threads "[Python-Dev] Is msvcr71.dll re-redistributable?"]

http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-February/thread.html

No, there isn't.

Seeing the discussions which raise around this topic, I think the
foundation should provide an official statement [e.g. contact MS to get
an official statement].

The official statement is that the MingW compiler is supported, indeed.

Thus the official statement should be possibly corrected.

* Compiling Python source-code under MinGW is not directly supported.
* Compliling extensions under MinGW leads possibly to problems.

Regards,
Martin

..

 

[Diez B. Roggisch]

Should a professional developer take python serious?

Unnecessary and deliberately provoking question - python is taken seriously,
e.g. by multi-billion dollar companies like google and zope. You OTH have
provided no evidence so far that you can be taken seriously as a developer
of whatever kind - neither professional nor hobbyist. So one has to
question the relevance of your demands.

I mean, if the team does not manage at least the foundation of a
multi-target automated-build-process?

Plain wrong. The team does very well manage that process - for a large
variety of platforms and compilers. Just not the compiler you perceive as
being a necessity. But that dead horse has been beaten enough already.