On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM, Pauli Virtanen <pav@iki.fi> wrote:
Hi,

ma, 2018-07-16 kello 06:49 -0700, Hameer Abbasi kirjoitti:
> I’ll be honest. One thing that has prevented me from getting into the
> C/C++
> meat of NumPy/SciPy is exactly what scikit-build is trying to solve.
> I’m
> all for extra dev dependencies if they make development easier.

Can you (and maybe Ralf) be more specific --- in what way there are
problems?

The most painful problem for me is the long build time - that (plus inertia) is what kept me developing on Python 2.7 for ages just so I could use Bento, while as a user I had already moved to Python 3. Proper parallel builds and incremental rebuilds are very nice to have.


What advantages scikit-build (which glues CMake and setuptools
together) brings?

If I understand correctly, scikit-build doesn't use anything from setuptools - it just copied the setup.py user interface. That's still a significant mistake imho, it should have a saner UI (declarative). But that's still minor compared to the advantages it has.

Beyond better builds and IDE support, also support for cross-compiling could be valuable.

Finally, on a bigger picture level - distutils is badly maintained and good patches can go unmerged, while numpy.distutils is a pain to maintain. An actively developed sane build tool will be valuable to both us and the wider ecosystem.


Typically, `python runtests.py` or `python setup.py build_ext -i` works
out of the box.

Of course, distutils forces you to do CFLAGS/etc customization via
environment variables, and BLAS/LAPACK selection via site.cfg which is
not so convenient.

Yes these are issues as well.

And of course we'd start with it as an optional second build system, and I volunteer to do most of the required maintenance.

Ralf

 

        Pauli


>
> Best Regards,
> Hameer Abbasi
> Sent from Astro <https://www.helloastro.com> for iOS
>
>
> On 16. Jul 2018 at 01:13, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 6:27 AM, Stefan van der Walt <stefanv@berkel
> > ey.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017, at 04:05, Evgeni Burovski wrote:
> > > > > I am using it all the time, but I suspect I'm the only one.
> > > > > Bento is
> > >
> > > way
> > > >
> > > > I seem to remember Stefan van der Walt saying the same thing :-
> > > > ).
> > >
> > > So, I guess there are two of us ;)
> > >
> > > Ralf wrote:
> > >
> > > > But it is hard to install because it depends on a specific
> > > > version of
> > >
> > > Waf (which is not on PyPI) and has some unresolved issues on
> > > Python 3.x.
> > >
> > > How hard would it be to vendor Waf into a pip package?  If this
> > > worked
> > > out the box, it would be great to development (repeated builds
> > > execute
> > > much faster).
> > >
> >
> > You mean vendor Waf in Bento and make a Bento pip-installable PyPI
> > package
> > right ? David and I discussed that already 2 years ago, that'd be
> > the way
> > to go. Shouldn't be too hard, Waf is designed to be vendored.
> >
> > What's a little more work is fixing some obvious issues: it doesn't
> > work
> > on Python 3.x right now, there was a recurring issue with -fPIC
> > going
> > missing, finish the open PR on producing wheels.
> >
>
> Okay, these fixes are probably not going to materialize. And I've
> finally
> ditched Python 2.7 for good a few months ago, and have dealt with my
> distutils aversion by getting better hardware. I haven't maintained
> the
> Bento build over the last few months, so it's not quite working
> anymore.
> Therefore I now propose to remove Bento support for v1.2.0
>
> Related: scikit-build seems to have quite a bit of momentum. I've
> never
> used CMake before, and while I know opinions on CMake aren't 100%
> positive,
> scikit-build looks like a significant improvement over distutils. I
> think
> we should try to integrate it at some point in the coming year.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Ralf
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SciPy-Dev mailing list
> SciPy-Dev@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
> _______________________________________________
> SciPy-Dev mailing list
> SciPy-Dev@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev

_______________________________________________
SciPy-Dev mailing list
SciPy-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev