Build bugs in Python 2.2.1?

Jonathan Hogg jonathan at onegoodidea.com
Sat Aug 10 21:23:21 CEST 2002


On 10/8/2002 18:09, in article 1028999338.200999 at yasure, "Donn Cave"
<donn at drizzle.com> wrote:

> I'm not the biggest fan of setup.py, but I don't think it needs
> to be a choice between setup.py and autoconfig.  There are all
> kinds of ways to get information from configure into setup.py,
> and all we need is to find one that might be ideologically
> acceptable to the folks who check stuff in.  Otherwise, big
> waste of time guaranteed.

Yeah, as I said before, the idea would be to let autoconf do what it does
best - figuring out what capabilities the platform has, letting the user
dictate what modules should be enabled, and what libraries should be found
where. All this info can then be used to generate a Modules/Setup file (as
is already done for the thread and signal modules) which setup.py can then
continue with.

But I have enough on my plate already. I'd be willing to help with working
towards a solution that would save me time in the future, but I have no
interest in maintaining a patch that will never be accepted - that just
wastes my time now for no benefit. It's a pain in the arse, but I can
continue special-casing Python.

Jonathan




More information about the Python-list mailing list