[Distutils] Re: distutils and C++ extensions

[Greg Ward]

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