Hi again --
[cc'd to Paul Dubois: you said you weren't following the distutils sig
anymore, but this directly concerns NumPy and I'd like to get your
input!]
here's that sample setup.py for NumPy. See below for discussion (and
questions!).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
#!/usr/bin/env python
# Setup script example for building the Numeric extension to Python.
# This does sucessfully compile all the .dlls. Nothing happens
# with the .py files currently.
# Move this file to the Numerical directory of the LLNL numpy
# distribution and run as:
# python numpysetup.py --verbose build_ext
#
# created 1999/08 Perry Stoll
__rcsid__ = "$Id: numpysetup.py,v 1.1 1999/09/12 20:42:48 gward Exp $"
from distutils.core import setup
setup (name = "numerical",
version = "0.01",
description = "Numerical Extension to Python",
url = "http://www.python.org/sigs/matrix-sig/",
ext_modules = [ ( '_numpy', { 'sources' : [ 'Src/_numpymodule.c',
'Src/arrayobject.c',
'Src/ufuncobject.c'
],
'include_dirs' : ['./Include'],
'def_file' : 'Src/numpy.def' }
),
( 'multiarray', { 'sources' : ['Src/multiarraymodule.c'],
'include_dirs' : ['./Include'],
'def_file': 'Src/multiarray.def'
}
),
( 'umath', { 'sources': ['Src/umathmodule.c'],
'include_dirs' : ['./Include'],
'def_file' : 'Src/umath.def' }
),
( 'fftpack', { 'sources': ['Src/fftpackmodule.c', 'Src/fftpack.c'],
'include_dirs' : ['./Include'],
'def_file' : 'Src/fftpack.def' }
),
( 'lapack_lite', { 'sources' : [ 'Src/lapack_litemodule.c',
'Src/dlapack_lite.c',
'Src/zlapack_lite.c',
'Src/blas_lite.c',
'Src/f2c_lite.c'
],
'include_dirs' : ['./Include'],
'def_file' : 'Src/lapack_lite.def' }
),
( 'ranlib', { 'sources': ['Src/ranlibmodule.c',
'Src/ranlib.c',
'Src/com.c',
'Src/linpack.c',
],
'include_dirs' : ['./Include'],
'def_file' : 'Src/ranlib.def' }
),
]
)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, what d'you think? Too clunky and verbose? Too much information
for each extension? I kind of think so, but I'm not sure how to reduce
it elegantly. Right now, the internal data structures needed to compile
a module are pretty obviously exposed: is this a good thing? Or should
there be some more compact form for setup.py that will be expanded later
into the full glory we see above?
I've already made one small step towards reducing the amount of cruft by
factoring 'include_dirs' out and supplying it directly as a parameter to
'setup()'. (But that needs code not in the CVS archive yet, so I've
left the sample setup.py the same for now.)
The next thing I'd like to do is get that damn "def_file" out of there.
To support it in MSVCCompiler, there's already an ugly hack that
unnecessarily affects both the UnixCCompiler and CCompiler classes, and
I want to get rid of that. (I refer to passing the 'build_info'
dictionary into the compiler classes, if you're familiar with the code
-- that dictionary is part of the Distutils extension-building system,
and should not propagate into the more general compiler classes.)
But I don't want to give these weird "def file" things standing on the
order of source files, object files, libraries, etc., because they seem
to me to be a bizarre artifact of one particular compiler, rather than
something present in a wide range of C/C++ compilers.
Based on the NumPy model, it seems like there's a not-too-kludgy way to
handle this problem. Namely:
if building extension "foo":
if file "foo.def" found in same directory as "foo.c"
add "/def:foo.def" to MSVC command line
this will of course require some platform-specific code in the build_ext
command class, but I figured that was coming eventually, so why put it
off? ;-)
To make this hack work with NumPy, one change would be necessary: rename
Src/numpy.def to Src/_numpy.def to match Src/_numpy.c, which implements
the _numpy module. Would this be too much to ask of NumPy? (Paul?)
What about other module distributions that support MSVC++ and thus ship
with "def" files? Could they be made to accomodate this scheme?
Thanks for your feedback --
Greg
--
Greg Ward - software developer gward(a)cnri.reston.va.us
Corporation for National Research Initiatives
1895 Preston White Drive voice: +1-703-620-8990
Reston, Virginia, USA 20191-5434 fax: +1-703-620-0913
Hi all --
at long last, I found the time to hack in the ability to compile
extension modules to the Distutils. Mainly, this meant adding a
'build_ext' command which uses a CCompiler instance for all its dirty
work. I also had to add a few methods to CCompiler (and, of course,
UnixCCompiler) to make this work.
And I added a new module, 'spawn', which takes care of running
sub-programs more efficiently and robustly (no shell involved) than
os.system. That's needed, obviously, so we can run the compiler!
If you're in the mood for grubbing over raw source code, then get the
latest from CVS or download a current snapshot. See
http://www.python.org/sigs/distutils-sig/implementation.html
for a link to the code snapshot.
I'm still waiting for more subclasses of CCompiler to appear. At the
very least, we're going to need MSVCCompiler to build extensions on
Windows. Any takers? Also, someone who knows the Mac, and how to run
compilers programmatically there, will have to figure out how to write a
Mac-specific concrete CCompiler subclass.
The spawn module also needs a bit of work to be portable. I suspect
that _win32_spawn() (the intended analog to my _posix_spawn()) will be
easy to implement, if it even needs to go in a separate function at all.
It looks from the Python Library documentation for 1.5.2 that the
os.spawnv() function is all we need, but it's a bit hard to figure out
just what's needed. Windows wizards, please take a look at the
'spawn()' function and see if you can make it work on Windows.
As for actually compiling extensions: well, if you can figure out the
build_ext command, go ahead and give it a whirl. It's a bit cryptic
right now, since there's no documentation and no example setup.py. (I
have a working example at home, but it's not available online.) If you
feel up to it, though, see if you can read the code and figure out
what's going on. I'm just hoping *I'll* be able to figure out what's
going on when I get back from the O'Reilly conference next week... ;-)
Enjoy --
Greg
--
Greg Ward - software developer gward(a)cnri.reston.va.us
Corporation for National Research Initiatives
1895 Preston White Drive voice: +1-703-620-8990
Reston, Virginia, USA 20191-5434 fax: +1-703-620-0913
Hi all --
at long last, I have fixed two problems that a couple people noticed a
while ago:
* I folded in Amos Latteier's NT patches almost verbatim -- just
changed an `os.path.sep == "/"' to `os.name == "posix"' and added
some comments bitching about the inadequacy of the current library
installation model (I think this is Python's fault, but for now
Distutils is slavishly aping the situation in Python 1.5.x)
* I fixed the problem whereby running "setup.py install" without
doing anything else caused a crash (because 'build' hadn't yet
been run). Now, the 'install' command automatically runs 'build'
before doing anything; to make this bearable, I added a 'have_run'
dictionary to the Distribution class to keep track of which commands
have been run. So now not only are command classes singletons,
but their 'run' method can only be invoked once -- both restrictions
enforced by Distribution.
The code is checked into CVS, or you can download a snapshot at
http://www.python.org/sigs/distutils-sig/distutils-19990607.tar.gz
Hope someone (Amos?) can try the new version under NT. Any takers for
Mac OS?
BTW, all parties involved in the Great "Where Do We Install Stuff?"
Debate should take a good, hard look at the 'set_final_options()' method
of the Install class in distutils/install.py; this is where all the
policy decisions about where to install files are made. Currently it
apes the Python 1.5 situation as closely as I could figure it out.
Obviously, this is subject to change -- I just don't know to *what* it
will change!
Greg
--
Greg Ward - software developer gward(a)cnri.reston.va.us
Corporation for National Research Initiatives
1895 Preston White Drive voice: +1-703-620-8990
Reston, Virginia, USA 20191-5434 fax: +1-703-620-0913
Hi all,
I've been aware that the distutils sig has been simmerring away, but
until recently it has not been directly relevant to what I do.
I like the look of the proposed api, but have one question. Will this
support an installed system that has multiple versions of the same
package installed simultaneously? If not, then this would seem to be a
significant limitation, especially when dependencies between packages
are considered.
Assuming it does, then how will this be achieved? I am presently
managing this with a messy arrangement of symlinks. A package is
installed with its version number in it's name, and a separate
directory is created for an application with links from the
unversioned package name to the versioned one. Then I just set the
pythonpath to this directory.
A sample of what the directory looks like is shown below.
I'm sure there is a better solution that this, and I'm not sure that
this would work under windows anyway (does windows have symlinks?).
So, has this SIG considered such versioning issues yet?
Cheers,
Tim
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Docker timd(a)macquarie.com.au
Quantative Applications Division
Macquarie Bank
--------------------------------------------------------------
qad16:qad $ ls -l lib/python/
total 110
drwxr-xr-x 2 mts mts 512 Nov 11 11:23 1.1
-r--r----- 1 root mts 45172 Sep 1 1998 cdrmodule_0_7_1.so
drwxr-xr-x 2 mts mts 512 Sep 1 1998 chart_1_1
drwxr-xr-x 3 mts mts 512 Sep 1 1998 Fnorb_0_7_1
dr-xr-x--- 3 mts mts 512 Nov 11 11:21 Fnorb_0_8
drwxr-xr-x 3 mts mts 1536 Mar 3 12:45 mts_1_1
dr-xr-x--- 7 mts mts 512 Nov 11 11:22 OpenGL_1_5_1
dr-xr-x--- 2 mts mts 1024 Nov 11 11:23 PIL_0_3
drwxr-xr-x 3 mts mts 512 Sep 1 1998 Pmw_0_7
dr-xr-x--- 2 mts mts 512 Nov 11 11:21 v3d_1_1
qad16:qad $ ls -l lib/python/1.1
total 30
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root other 29 Apr 10 10:43 _glumodule.so -> ../OpenGL_1_5_1/_glumodule.so
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root other 30 Apr 10 10:43 _glutmodule.so -> ../OpenGL_1_5_1/_glutmodule.so
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root other 22 Apr 10 10:43 _imaging.so -> ../PIL_0_3/_imaging.so
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root other 36 Apr 10 10:43 _opengl_nummodule.so -> ../OpenGL_1_5_1/_opengl_nummodule.so
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root other 27 Apr 10 10:43 _tkinter.so -> ../OpenGL_1_5_1/_tkinter.so
lrwxrwxrwx 1 mts mts 21 Apr 10 10:43 cdrmodule.so -> ../cdrmodule_0_7_1.so
lrwxrwxrwx 1 mts mts 12 Apr 10 10:43 chart -> ../chart_1_1
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root other 12 Apr 10 10:43 Fnorb -> ../Fnorb_0_8
lrwxrwxrwx 1 mts mts 12 Apr 10 10:43 mts -> ../mts_1_1
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root other 15 Apr 10 10:43 OpenGL -> ../OpenGL_1_5_1
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root other 33 Apr 10 10:43 opengltrmodule.so -> ../OpenGL_1_5_1/opengltrmodule.so
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root other 33 Apr 10 10:43 openglutil_num.so -> ../OpenGL_1_5_1/openglutil_num.so
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root other 10 Apr 10 10:43 PIL -> ../PIL_0_3
lrwxrwxrwx 1 mts mts 10 Apr 10 10:43 Pmw -> ../Pmw_0_7
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root other 10 Apr 10 10:43 v3d -> ../v3d_1_1
Considering the following schedule of events:
Oct 4: I go out of town (away from email, off the net, etc.)
Oct 10: planned release of Python 2.0
Oct 12: I'm back in town, ready to hack! (and wondering why it's
so quiet around here...)
the Distutils 1.0 release will go out October 1 or 2. I don't need
quite as much code freeze time as the full Python release, but let's put
it this way: if there are features you want added to the Distutils that
I don't already know about, forget about it. Changes currently under
consideration:
* Rene Liebscher's rearrangement of the CCompiler classes; most
of this is just reducing the amount of code, but it does
add some minor features, so it's under consideration.
* making byte-compilation more flexible: should be able to
generate both .pyc and .pyo files, and should be able to
do it at build time or install time (developer's and packager's
discretion)
If you know about any outstanding Distutils bugs, please tell me *now*.
Put 'em in the SourceForge bug database if you're wondering why I
haven't fixed them yet -- they might have gotten lost, I might not know
about 'em, etc. If you're not sure, put it in SourceForge.
Stuff that will definitely have to wait until after 1.0:
* a "test" command (standard test framework for Python modules)
* finishing the "config" command (auto-configuration)
* installing package meta-data, to support "what *do* I have
installed, anyways?" queries, uninstallation, upgrades, etc.
Blue-sky projects:
* standard documentation processing
* intra-module dependencies
Greg
--
Greg Ward gward(a)python.net
http://starship.python.net/~gward/
Hi all --
based on and inspired by recent patches from Marc-Andre Lemburg and Rene
Liebscher, I've finally started tackling the byte-compilation problem in
earnest. Here's the approach I'm taking:
* new function 'byte_compile()' in distutils.util: this is the all-
singing, all-dancing wrapper around py_compile that will do all
the real work
* reduce the 'bytecompile()' method in the install_lib command to
a simple wrapper around 'util.byte_compile()', that does the Right
Thing with respect to optimization and claimed source filename
written to the .py{c,o} file
* add similar functionality to the build_py command, so that you
may optionally do byte-compilation at build time rather than
install time.
The first two steps are done and checked in, except that install_lib's
'bytecompile()' method doesn't yet take advantage of the fancy features
in the new 'byte_compile()' -- it doesn't rewrite filenames or do
optimization.
The default will continue to be doing compilation at install time rather
than build time. I'm still leaning towards build-time compilation, but
it's too late in the Distutils 1.0 release cycle to change things like
this. However, I want to have the *option* to do compilation at build
time, so people can experiment with it, see if it works, figure out what
other features are needed so it really works, etc. The idea is that
developers could put settings in their setup.cfg that control when to do
byte-compilation; I suspect developers who want to distribute
closed-source modules will have to do build-time compilation. Probably
the "install" command will need some sort of "don't install source"
option, or maybe the build command should have a "blow away source after
compiling it" option.
Here's my 'byte_compile()' function: as usual, it works for me. Please
review it, and if you're following CVS, try it out. (Should be enough
to install any module distribution containing pure Python modules.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
def byte_compile (py_files,
optimize=0, force=0,
prefix=None, base_dir=None,
verbose=1, dry_run=0,
direct=None):
"""Byte-compile a collection of Python source files to either
.pyc or .pyo files in the same directory. 'optimize' must be
one of the following:
0 - don't optimize (generate .pyc)
1 - normal optimization (like "python -O")
2 - extra optimization (like "python -OO")
If 'force' is true, all files are recompiled regardless of
timestamps.
The source filename encoded in each bytecode file defaults to the
filenames listed in 'py_files'; you can modify these with 'prefix' and
'basedir'. 'prefix' is a string that will be stripped off of each
source filename, and 'base_dir' is a directory name that will be
prepended (after 'prefix' is stripped). You can supply either or both
(or neither) of 'prefix' and 'base_dir', as you wish.
If 'verbose' is true, prints out a report of each file. If 'dry_run'
is true, doesn't actually do anything that would affect the filesystem.
Byte-compilation is either done directly in this interpreter process
with the standard py_compile module, or indirectly by writing a
temporary script and executing it. Normally, you should let
'byte_compile()' figure out to use direct compilation or not (see
the source for details). The 'direct' flag is used by the script
generated in indirect mode; unless you know what you're doing, leave
it set to None.
"""
# First, if the caller didn't force us into direct or indirect mode,
# figure out which mode we should be in. We take a conservative
# approach: choose direct mode *only* if the current interpreter is
# in debug mode and optimize is 0. If we're not in debug mode (-O
# or -OO), we don't know which level of optimization this
# interpreter is running with, so we can't do direct
# byte-compilation and be certain that it's the right thing. Thus,
# always compile indirectly if the current interpreter is in either
# optimize mode, or if either optimization level was requested by
# the caller.
if direct is None:
direct = (__debug__ and optimize == 0)
# "Indirect" byte-compilation: write a temporary script and then
# run it with the appropriate flags.
if not direct:
from tempfile import mktemp
script_name = mktemp(".py")
if verbose:
print "writing byte-compilation script '%s'" % script_name
if not dry_run:
script = open(script_name, "w")
script.write("""\
from distutils.util import byte_compile
files = [
""")
script.write(string.join(map(repr, py_files), ",\n") + "]\n")
script.write("""
byte_compile(files, optimize=%s, force=%s,
prefix=%s, base_dir=%s,
verbose=%s, dry_run=0,
direct=1)
""" % (`optimize`, `force`, `prefix`, `base_dir`, `verbose`))
script.close()
cmd = [sys.executable, script_name]
if optimize == 1:
cmd.insert(1, "-O")
elif optimize == 2:
cmd.insert(1, "-OO")
spawn(cmd, verbose=verbose, dry_run=dry_run)
# "Direct" byte-compilation: use the py_compile module to compile
# right here, right now. Note that the script generated in indirect
# mode simply calls 'byte_compile()' in direct mode, a weird sort of
# cross-process recursion. Hey, it works!
else:
from py_compile import compile
for file in py_files:
if file[-3:] != ".py":
raise ValueError, \
"invalid filename: %s doesn't end with '.py'" % `file`
# Terminology from the py_compile module:
# cfile - byte-compiled file
# dfile - purported source filename (same as 'file' by default)
cfile = file + (__debug__ and "c" or "o")
dfile = file
if prefix:
if file[:len(prefix)] != prefix:
raise ValueError, \
("invalid prefix: filename %s doesn't start with %s"
% (`file`, `prefix`))
dfile = dfile[len(prefix):]
if base_dir:
dfile = os.path.join(base_dir, dfile)
cfile_base = os.path.basename(cfile)
if direct:
if force or newer(file, cfile):
if verbose:
print "byte-compiling %s to %s" % (file, cfile_base)
if not dry_run:
compile(file, cfile, dfile)
else:
if verbose:
print "skipping byte-compilation of %s to %s" % \
(file, cfile_base)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Greg Ward gward(a)python.net
http://starship.python.net/~gward/
I just had the idea to make bcccompiler a little bit
more robust.
By default, python is delivered with pythonxx.lib
and pythonxx_d.lib import libraries generated by MSVC,
which are in COFF format. By inspection I found
that these libraries start with the bytes '!<arch>./'
(without the single quotes).
Shouldn't we open these files and issue a warning
or error if they start with these bytes?
We could even invoke borland's coff2omf utility
to convert them...
Thomas
i've got a python extension that is simply a wrapping
around another C library. (not an uncommon case :])
i cannot figure out the 'right' way to check for and
link/include this dependency into my distutils
setup.py script.
under linux, it's pretty easy to assume the correct
header and shared library will be somewhere in the
standard include and library directories
/usr/local/include, /usr/local/lib, etc
my main concern is getting it working with windows
(and keeping it crossplatform happy for linux). my best
bet in windows seems to be walk around the parent directory
tree trying to find directories for the dependency??
if that is the best way, it would probably be nice for
the linux version to use this method or look in the
standard compiler directories ???????
i'm hoping someone out there has an example doing just
this sort of stuff i could look at. the documentation doesn't
mention anything about this sort of stuff. (except for
adding library and include info to the Extensions() call
thanks for any help and/or guidance. the distutils have
just amazed me.
(please help, i couldn't get any responses on c.l.python)
Hi all --
some months ago, I added completely experimental and untested support
for compiling SWIG extensions to the Distutils. I even documented it!
But I have been unable to verify for myself that it works, since I have
been unable to build SWIG on my home PC. I haven't heard any reports of
success, and the first reports of failure were from 4Thought last week.
So: can anyone vouch for whether the Distutils SWIG support works at
all, does the "right thing", etc? What's broken about it, what works?
Should it even be documented?
Greg
--
Greg Ward gward(a)python.net
http://starship.python.net/~gward/
