[Distutils] non-"standard" compilers...
bob at redivi.com
Fri May 27 19:10:51 CEST 2005
On May 27, 2005, at 9:41 AM, Nicholas Bastin wrote:
> On 5/27/05, Phillip J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:
>> At 12:15 PM 5/27/2005 -0400, Nicholas Bastin wrote:
>>> Also, I'm assuming this is only true on unix? Win32 seems to pick
>>> MSVC no matter what (and complain a lot if you don't have it).
>> That's because MSVC is the only supported compiler for Python on that
>> platform. There has been some work on supporting the MinGW
>> compiler, and
>> the MinGW compiler can be used to build extensions that work on
>> but nobody has done any work on supporting any other compilers
>> that I know of.
> The Intel C++ compiler works perfectly well (we build and ship using
> this compiler). However, because we do this, we can't use any
> distutils-distributed extension modules, because they complain that we
> don't have the .NET runtime or some such. I usually just try to
> construct makefiles for the extension modules in each package, and
> that works reasonably well for most extensions.
> Also, does distutils support the notion of installation a 'FAT'
> distribution? We also have to tear each install apart to put the .py
> files in a platform independent place, and the .pyd's in a
> platform-specific location, which usually involves a lot of magic
> tricks when the .pyd's are imported as part of a package.
No, it doesn't. I've done this too, it basically involves the same
trick that py2app and ilk use to put an extension module in a zip
file. Replace the extension with a .py that knows where to look for
a platform-specific extension to import.
Or, simply have an 'OBESE' distribution where you have a copy of
everything for every platform :)
More information about the Distutils-SIG