[Distutils] Re: distutils and C++ extensions

Stefan Seefeld seefeld@sympatico.ca
Fri Aug 23 10:04:38 2002

Greg Ward wrote:

> 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.

ok, it's filed (assigned to 'nobody').

>>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!

ok, I'll have a try next week.