[Python-Dev] Evaluated cmake as an autoconf replacement

David Cournapeau cournape at gmail.com
Tue Apr 7 15:08:38 CEST 2009

On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:14 PM,  <skip at pobox.com> wrote:
>    Ondrej> ... while scons and other Python solutions imho encourage to
>    Ondrej> write full Python programs, which imho is a disadvantage for the
>    Ondrej> build system, as then every build system is nonstandard.
> Hmmm...  Like distutils setup scripts?

fortunately, waf and scons are much better than distutils, at least
for the build part :)

I think it is hard to overestimate the importance of a python solution
for python softwares (python itself is different). Having a full
fledged language for complex builds is nice, I think most familiar
with complex makefiles would agree with this.

> I don't know thing one about cmake, but if it's good for the goose (building
> Python proper) would it be good for the gander (building extensions)?

For complex softwares, specially ones relying on lot of C and platform
idiosyncrasies, distutils is just too cumbersome and limited. Both
Ondrej and me use python for scientific usage, and I think it is no
hazard that we both look for something else. In those cases, scons -
and cmake it seems - are very nice; build tools are incredibly hard to
get right once you want to manage dependencies automatically.

For simple python projects (pure python, a few .c source files without
much dependencies), I think it is just overkill.


> --
> Skip Montanaro - skip at pobox.com - http://www.smontanaro.net/
>        "XML sucks, dictionaries rock" - Dave Beazley
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/cournape%40gmail.com

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list