Build bugs in Python 2.2.1?

Bengt Richter bokr at oz.net
Sat Aug 10 18:46:16 CEST 2002


On 10 Aug 2002 15:51:42 +0200, martin at v.loewis.de (Martin v. Loewis) wrote:

>Jonathan Hogg <jonathan at onegoodidea.com> writes:
>
>> Which is why it should search in the install prefix for libraries. This is
>> the standard procedure with most autoconf-style packages. 
>
>Can you give a few examples, please?
>
>> I'd be happy to aid in helping with using autoconf to manage the entire
>> build process if there was a good chance of it being accepted into the
>> standard distribution.
>
>I guess you try to incorporate changes one-by-one, with some long-term
>goal in mind. It is impossible to predict what reactions a change to
>the build procedure will cause.
>
>I can tell for certain that a process that reverts setup.py to use
>autoconf instead will be rejected.
>
It sounds like there may be arguments both ways, but on principle I
would say that magic paths are not much better than magic numbers.

What about a fork in setup.py development so an alternate can grow quickly,
taking advantage of the apparent supply of currently motivated people ;-)

I hate to see willing and able people discouraged from contributing,
if there is a clean (i.e., doesn't cause instability-FUD) way to add
a useful improvement. Especially if I don't have to do the work ;-)

If it's easy to retain the old behavior as an option without too much
cruft, maybe that could also be a path to switching horses in the future?
Or the choice could be offered at Python install time.

Regards,
Bengt Richter



More information about the Python-list mailing list