Mail Archives: djgpp/2002/05/20/14:29:29
Hello.
deckerben wrote:
>
> > Wow! How difficult was it to port? Were any source changes required?
>
> A little. I'm not that good, and I needed some help. But it seems OK now,
> all the scripts seem to work. I wrote a *small* README outlineing some of
> the steps needed to set it up. If anyone has trouble, please let me know in
> this group, because I have decided not to announce it *just* yet to the
> python guys(and gals - sorry Eli) :-)
Do you have diffs against the original sources? I can take a look at the
diffs, if you'd like a second opinion.
(I added a DJGPP port of Python to my list of things to do on Friday, which is
a pretty strange coincidence!)
> Actually, I did it because I was looking for a faster alternative to Batch
> files.
That's a long way to go, just to get faster scripts! But I can understand
that.
> > > Richard Dawe's libsocket port may enable some low-level options,
> but
> > > socketmodule.c still does not compile as of now. Libsocket is not being
> > > actively developed.
> > [snip]
> >
> > Personally I would not bother trying to make Python work with libsocket,
> since
> > libsocket is unsupported. It's more trouble than it's worth. Is a socket
> > library currently required to build Python?
>
> I have Watt32 downloaded, but I haven't played with it yet. You know, Python
> has a socketmodule, right? well... for it to work ... it needs a socket.
> Socketmodule is missing entirely this go-around. maybe someday I'll find an
> answer.
I haven't really started learning Python yet. I've done some Zope stuff and
I'm going to write some stuff at work in Python, but I'm not at all familiar
with the language.
The problem with socket libraries is that they only work on a subset of the
platforms that DJGPP runs on. That really is pretty inconvenient for the user.
Until there's one library for all platforms, I'm not sure it's worth trying to
add Socketmodule.
In the worst case a Python program could invoke a program to do what it wants,
e.g.: get a web page.
> BTW: thanks for keeping the Libsocket page up, even if you don't
> support it anymore.
It's no trouble. 8) Actually, I hope there are some useful bits of information
and links there.
Thanks, bye,
--
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]
- Raw text -