[Python-Dev] new Makefile.in
Guido van Rossum
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:56:04 -0500
My mail suffers delays of 12-24 hours while mail.python.org is working
on some enormous backlog. So I just saw your message about a new
> Spurred on by comments made by Andrew, I spent some time last
> night overhauling the Python Makefiles. I now have a toplevel
> non-recursive Makefile.in that seems to work fairly well. I'm
> pretty sure it still should be portable. It doesn't use includes
> or any special GNU make features. It is half the size of the old
> Makefiles. The build is faster and its now easier to follow if
> something goes wrong.
I'd like to see this!
> A question: is it possible to break the Python static library up?
> For example, instead of having libpython<version>.a have
> Parser/parser<version>.a, Objects/objects<version>.a, etc? There
> would still only be one shared library. This would speed up
> incremental builds and also help Andrew with PEP 229. I'm
> thinking that the Makefile do something like this:
> all: python$(EXE)
> PYLIBS= Parser/parser.a Objects/objects.a ... Modules/modules.a
> python$(EXE): $(PYLIBS)
> $(LINKCC) -o python$(EXE) $(PYLIBS) ...
> Modules/modules.a: minpython$(EXE)
> ./minpython$(EXE) setup.py
Sounds cool to me. (Where's the patch for a shared libpython???)
> AFACT, the only thing affected by splitting up the static library
> is Misc/Makefile.pre.in. Is this correct?
Yeah, and that should be phased out in favor of distutils anyway. Now
would be a great time!
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)