Build bugs in Python 2.2.1?

Martin v. Löwis loewis at informatik.hu-berlin.de
Sat Aug 10 13:11:01 CEST 2002


Jonathan Hogg <jonathan at onegoodidea.com> writes:

> Being intentional doesn't necessarily make it correct. Adding /usr/local to
> the library/include path will only enable modules which happen to have
> dependencies in that place, and in the worst case may result in linking to
> entirely the wrong libraries.

This is all correct. However, it so happens that this is a common
case: people do have libraries in /usr/local, as this is the autoconf
default prefix.

> The module build process should honour the same conventions that the core
> build process does (and indeed all other autoconf-style packages do).

Why is that?

> [To be honest, I think the automagic setup.py is a mistake and the
> functionality from that should be extracted out into configure with
> configure then generating a correct Modules/Setup file.]

I think similarly: setup.py supports most users to their
satisfaction. It cannot support all use cases; people who have needs
beyond what setup.py can do need to edif Modules/Setup.

In changing these things, one has to be careful not to displease the
many in order to satisfy the few.

Regards,
Martin



More information about the Python-list mailing list