> OK, Nevermind that boost problem was my own stupidity. I was compiling against > my systems boost lib and the version was actually too low. But it's building > with 1.49 in sid so no problem here. So I'll push my results later.
pbuilder is your friend :) > python2.6 and python2.7 both build. how did you solve the boost_python name problem ? > Why can't we use the systems scons? I was using it. In my understanding the > compilation is only dependent of the python include or am I missing something? > -I/usr/include/python2.6 > -I/usr/include/python2.7 Yes it would be better to build using the scons provided by Debian. At the end of the process, cctbx should be repackage and removing scons is on the list :) > Right now, I got several python packages built with the same rather > simple setup.py. The resulting modules don't run yet because I still > need to solve small problems with the runtime dependencies. Can you provide more information about this runtime problem ? > Sounds promising! yes :))) See you Fred PS: do you know about sastbx http://sastbx.als.lbl.gov/wiki/index.php/Main_Page It would be nice if your work on cctbx could be easily ported to sastbx. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/a2a20ec3b8560d408356cac2fc148e53568ee...@sun-dag1.synchrotron-soleil.fr
