In article
That's just not true. Also, the small build issue that triggered this thread is already tracked here:
http://bugs.python.org/issue22625
It seems more productive to me to fix that rather than rewrite the build system. Users don't have an unlimited tolerance for pointless churn.
+10 How many different platforms and configurations on each platform do we explicitly or implicitly support today for current CPython 2 and CPython 3 releases? I don't know (and I should since I help release them) but it's clearly at least in the dozens. We do not currently have formal tests or test platforms (e.g. buildbots) for many of them like we should and it would be a monumental undertaking to try to migrate the current build system to something substantially different. It's fine to let off steam about frustrations with build systems but talking about it here is not gonna cause it to change. And it won't change unless someone (or, more likely, some big company) is willing to invest an enormous effort in people time and machine resources to do so. Stefan's suggestion is much more practical. Along with it, if someone is motivated, better documenting the current processes for cross-compilation and which pairs of build/target systems are supported would be a welcome and extremely useful improvement. Much of what is there today for cross-compilation has slipped in over the years with little discussion or documentation. It's easy to break because it's not always clear how it is supposed to work and because it isn't regularly tested. -- Ned Deily, nad@acm.org