[Pythonmac-SIG] gmpy universal build (static)?

[Daniel Lord]

> IMHO this is the more important one for software that doesn't build  
> out of the box, binary packages are nice to have but it should be  
> possible to rebuild those without reinventing the wheel every time.
>
> What I'd like to see is a collection of binary packages that are  
> created from a set of recipies (somewhat like what DarwinPorts  
> does, but without sucking in a second installation of unix). That  
> way it should be possible to (mostly) automaticly rebuild the  
> binary packages when new versions of software are released, and  
> when a new version of Python is released.
>
> In an ideal world we'd have the same set of software available for  
> python 2.4, python 2.5 and Apple's python installation. The only  
> way to get there is by using a toolset that does most of the work,  
> manually building software and checking that everything still works  
> is too much work.

I use shell scripts to do such things even though there are far  
better tools.
I like it because the shell is: ubiquitous, doesn't require special  
tools or configs, is easy to comprehend, and is easy to modify when  
things (as they always do) break as versions change.

<wishful-thinking>
It would be nice to have a set of tools like Fink does, only made for  
building software in place.
</wishful-thinking>

> Somewhere on the web should be good enough, Google should be able  
> to find it then :-)

I have a .Mac home page I _never_ really use. Sound like a project to  
go into the queue.
That reminds me, I need to do this for my universal PIL build for 2.4  
as well lest the formula become lost in antiquity ;-)

On Jan 9, 2007, at 3:32, Ronald Oussoren wrote:

>
> On 9 Jan, 2007, at 12:04, Daniel Lord wrote:
>
>> Ronald,
>> Yes I will. You raise a very good point about reproducibility.
>> I'll build a binary distro for those who want to keep it simple.
>> But I will also include an archive containing instruction, shell  
>> scripts, env vars, and steps required to 'curl' the source and  
>> build it from scratch.
>
> IMHO this is the more important one for software that doesn't build  
> out of the box, binary packages are nice to have but it should be  
> possible to rebuild those without reinventing the wheel every time.
>
> What I'd like to see is a collection of binary packages that are  
> created from a set of recipies (somewhat like what DarwinPorts  
> does, but without sucking in a second installation of unix). That  
> way it should be possible to (mostly) automaticly rebuild the  
> binary packages when new versions of software are released, and  
> when a new version of Python is released.
>
> In an ideal world we'd have the same set of software available for  
> python 2.4, python 2.5 and Apple's python installation. The only  
> way to get there is by using a toolset that does most of the work,  
> manually building software and checking that everything still works  
> is too much work.
>
>> It requires just a bit of tweaking the CFLAGS and LDFLAGS ( for  
>> gmp) and a one-line patch for the gmpy distro in cvs (1.02)
>>
>> That would be an ideal things to also put in the Wiki were it not  
>> in such sorry state.
>> I'd like to help with the Wiki, but I don't have the requisite  
>> time to learn is admin nor do the content justice right now.
>
> Somewhere on the web should be good enough, Google should be able  
> to find it then :-)
>
> Ronald