On 23 August 2002, Stefan Seefeld said:

ok, it's a bug. Should I file it somewhere ? I may even try to fix it...

Yeah, just tested it myself, and you're quite right. I *thought* I coded it to mirror the source directory structure in the temp directory. Either I'm misremembering, or I tried to do it that way and screwed up, or somebody snuck in and changed the code while I wasn't looking. File the bug on SourceForge: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=add&group_id=5470&atid=105470 Make sure you're logged in -- if you don't have an SF account, you'll need to get one. Set category to distutils. Dunno who you should assign the bug to. I have an appalling track record with distutils bugs, so probably not me.

well, it doesn't look very difficult to me. All that is necessary is some extension substructure. Instead of describing an extension module by a single 'Extension' tuple of options (i.e. source files + options how to compile time), an extension should contain a list of 'extension components'. Each component then contains what 'Extension' now contains, and the module is linked by linking all the objects from all these components together. It's just one more indirection, doesn't look too hard to implement. What do you think ?

Sounds sensible on the surface. Backwards compatibility is crucial: existing setup scripts must continue to work with no changes. Apart from that tiny constraint, go for it! Patches should be submitted here: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=add&group_id=5470&atid=305470 Again, category=distutils and I don't know who to assign it to. Thanks! Greg -- Greg Ward - programmer-at-big gward@python.net http://starship.python.net/~gward/ MTV -- get off the air! -- Dead Kennedys