[Python-Dev] What to do about PEP 229?

[M.-A. Lemburg]

Andrew Kuchling wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 11:39:18PM +0100, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
> >Can't distutils try both and then settle for the working combination ?
> 
> I'm worried about subtle problems; what if an unneeded -lfoo drags in
> a customized malloc, or has symbols which conflict with some other
> library.

In that case, I think the user will have to decide. setup.py should
then default to not integrating the module in question and issue
a warning telling the use what to look for and how to call setup.py
in order to add the right combination of libs.
 
> >... BTW, where is Greg ? I haven't heard from him in quite a while.]
> 
> Still around; he just hasn't been posting much these days.

Good to know :)
 
> >Why not parse Setup and use it as input to distutils setup.py ?
> 
> That was option 1.  The existing Setup format doesn't really contain
> enough intelligence, though; the intelligence is usually in comments
> such as "Uncomment the following line for Solaris".  So either the
> Setup format is modified (bad, since we'd break existing 3rd-party
> packages that still use a Makefile.pre.in), or I give up and just do
> everything in a setup.py.

I would still like a simple input to setup.py -- one that doesn't
require hacking setup.py just to enable a few more modules.

-- 
Marc-Andre Lemburg
______________________________________________________________________
Company:                                        http://www.egenix.com/
Consulting:                                    http://www.lemburg.com/
Python Pages:                           http://www.lemburg.com/python/