On 15 Mar, 2010, at 16:22, Tom Loredo wrote:

> 
> Tom Loredo <loredo@astro.cornell.edu> added the comment:
> 
> Ned-
> 
> I *did* run "make install"; everything I reported was about the situation *after* running "make install".  In particular, I don't know any way to get access to IDLE without "make install"; what I described came from using the version in Applications/Python 2.6, which only appears after "make install".
> 
> Okay, now I see my misunderstanding---the arch-dependent executables are in the framework only, and not linked in the installation prefix.  Is that the intended behavior?  I do put my framework in my PATH so I do have access to the executables; but I was expecting them to be in /usr/local/... as well.
> 
> The version pointed to in /usr/local/... is the 32-bit version.  This should be documented somewhere; I believe it changes previous behavior.  It's not obvious to me what to expect here, which again argues that it should be documented.

This is not a regression in 2.6,  the python-32 executable has never been linked into /usr/local/bin.  I agree that they should be as long as we fill /usr/local/bin, but that can wait until 2.6.6.

I always add the framework to $PATH because distutils installs scripts into that location.   It would be worthwhile to change that for 2.7 and 3.2: tweak distutils to ensure that site-packages and scripts get installed in /Library/Python/2.7/... and install (links to) the public executables there as well.  That way the location of scripts and site-packages is easily found in the Finder, while keeping a versioned location.     I don't want to tweak distutils to install into /usr/local because I have several python trees and those should stay separate.

Ronald

> 
> ----------
> 
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <http://bugs.python.org/issue8089>
> _______________________________________