Anthony So we'd now have 3 places to update when things change
Anthony (setup.py, PCbuild area, SCons)?
Four. You forgot Modules/Setup...
Skip
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
On Thu Nov 9 07:45:30 CET 2006, Anthony Baxter wrote:
On Thursday 09 November 2006 16:30, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Patch #841454 takes a stab at cross-compilation
(for MingW32 on a Linux system, in this case),
and proposes to use SCons instead of setup.py
to compile extension modules.
On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 04:42:48PM +0100, David Boddie wrote:
On Thu Nov 9 07:45:30 CET 2006, Anthony Baxter wrote:
On Thursday 09 November 2006 16:30, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Patch #841454 takes a stab at cross-compilation
(for MingW32 on a Linux system, in this case),
and proposes
Anthony Baxter schrieb:
So we'd now have 3 places to update when things change (setup.py, PCbuild
area, SCons)? How does this deal with the problems that autoconf has with
cross-compilation? It would seem to me that just fixing the extension module
building is a tiny part of the problem...
Martin In any case, the patch being contributed uses SCons. If people
Martin think this is unmaintainable, this is a reason to reject the
Martin patch.
Could SCons replace distutils?
Skip
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 01:15:15PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin In any case, the patch being contributed uses SCons. If people
Martin think this is unmaintainable, this is a reason to reject the
Martin patch.
Could SCons replace distutils?
If SCons replaced Distutils
Chris Lambacher schrieb:
I think a better question is what about Distutils hinders cross-compiler
scenarios and how to we fix those deficiencies?
It's primarily the lack of contributions. Somebody would have to define
a cross-compilation scenario (where use Cygwin on Linux is one that
might be
Could SCons replace distutils?
Chris If SCons replaced Distutils would SCons have to become part of
Chris Python? Is SCons ready for that? What do you do about the
Chris existing body 3rd party extensions that are already using
Chris Distutils?
Sorry, my question was
David Boddie schrieb:
It seems that Martin's patch solves some problems I encountered more cleanly
(in certain respects) than the solutions I came up with. Here are some
issues I encountered (from memory):
Just let me point out that it is not my patch:
http://python.org/sf/841454
was
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Someone (I don't know who) submitted a patch to use SCons for building
modules in cross-compilation contexts. Either the author tried to shoehorn
this into distutils and failed or never tried (maybe because using SCons for
such takss is much easier - who knows?). I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 9, 2006, at 2:15 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin In any case, the patch being contributed uses SCons. If
people
Martin think this is unmaintainable, this is a reason to
reject the
Martin patch.
Could SCons replace
Barry Warsaw wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 9, 2006, at 2:15 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin In any case, the patch being contributed uses SCons. If
people
Martin think this is unmaintainable, this is a reason to
reject the
Martin
Patch #841454 takes a stab at cross-compilation
(for MingW32 on a Linux system, in this case),
and proposes to use SCons instead of setup.py
to compile extension modules. Usage of SCons
would be restricted to cross-compilation (for
the moment).
What do you think?
Regards,
Martin
On Thursday 09 November 2006 16:30, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Patch #841454 takes a stab at cross-compilation
(for MingW32 on a Linux system, in this case),
and proposes to use SCons instead of setup.py
to compile extension modules. Usage of SCons
would be restricted to cross-compilation (for
14 matches
Mail list logo
