[Python-Dev] Suggested change for Setup.in
Tue, 3 Oct 2000 19:07:11 +0200
On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 11:39:19AM -0400, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
> but Setup.in has this suggestion, which I think is too hard for people
> to figure out what to do:
> zlib zlibmodule.c -I$(prefix)/include -L$(exec_prefix)/lib -lz
> The standard build options will already include the right -I and -L
> flags for this to Just Work. I suggest we make the common case
> (Linux?) simple, and let others figure out what the right -I and -L
> flags are. I submit that even if they /do/ have to handcraft -I and
> -L, the defaults in Setup.in are pretty meaningless.
> A worthy change? For 2.0 final?
What about including both -I$(prefix)/include and -L$(exec_prefix)/lib by
default, for all modules, if those directories already exist ? Because zlib
is not the only module that has this problem. On BSDI and Solaris, the
same problem exists for curses, readline and gdbm, at least. If you are
installing in a completely separate tree, for whatever reason, either those
include/lib directories won't exist, they won't contain anything useful, or
they will contain the actual libraries you want to link with, anyway ;-P
And if you are installing in a 'standard' tree, like /usr, /usr/local,
/usr/contrib, /opt, or whatever, the optional GNU stuff is likely to be
there, too. If you don't fall under any of these cases, you'll have to do
what you have to do now, figure it out by hand.
I don't think changing the zlib line alone is going to matter much; it stops
working 'out of the box' for the slightly-less common case of non-linux
platforms (and not even all linux platforms ! There is no reason why a
distribution would install zlib in /usr.) I would prefer adding a
comment that clarifies the -I/-L lines, over removing them altogether, if we
aren't including $prefix/include and $exec_prefix/lib by default.
Thomas Wouters <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!