On Oct 24, 2008, at 6:22 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote: > Hi, > > Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: >> I suppose it is just a matter of someone requesting that a library is >> added. Perhaps Robert should post a "Call for pxds" email? > > I don't think this makes sense in general. We can't ship a new copy > of a .pxd > file each time a library changes its API. I think it's best to have > a library > project maintain the relevant .pxd files, and to distribute them > with the > matching version of their releases (or the -dev packages > respectively).
I think it makes sense for some very common, stable libraries, e.g. numpy, stl, gmp, and stuff like that. I don't think it makes sense for the vast majority of libraries written however. > The next best solution is to have .pxd maintainers that > provide .pxd files as > a separate download apart from the library project itself, and the > third best > solution is to push the .pxds into Cython (or it's Wiki) and let > them suffer > from bit-rot there. I really like the wiki idea (would throw up a page now but I can't get to the internet at the moment), though to prevent bit-rot dates/ versions should be clearly stated. This especially makes sense for libraries that may come with the system and/or are most commonly obtained via apt-get. However, the most recent .pxd files should be shipped with the libraries themselves, probably as part of the "python bindings." Hopefully with parsing of .h files much of the need for this will go away, though it can't fulfill all needs and it's a solution now rather than pending a future feature. - Robert _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
