On May 27, 2005, at 9:41 AM, Nicholas Bastin wrote: > On 5/27/05, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> At 12:15 PM 5/27/2005 -0400, Nicholas Bastin wrote: >> >>> Also, I'm assuming this is only true on unix? Win32 seems to pick >>> MSVC no matter what (and complain a lot if you don't have it). >>> >> >> That's because MSVC is the only supported compiler for Python on that >> platform. There has been some work on supporting the MinGW >> compiler, and >> the MinGW compiler can be used to build extensions that work on >> Windows, >> but nobody has done any work on supporting any other compilers >> that I know of. >> > > The Intel C++ compiler works perfectly well (we build and ship using > this compiler). However, because we do this, we can't use any > distutils-distributed extension modules, because they complain that we > don't have the .NET runtime or some such. I usually just try to > construct makefiles for the extension modules in each package, and > that works reasonably well for most extensions. > > Also, does distutils support the notion of installation a 'FAT' > distribution? We also have to tear each install apart to put the .py > files in a platform independent place, and the .pyd's in a > platform-specific location, which usually involves a lot of magic > tricks when the .pyd's are imported as part of a package.
No, it doesn't. I've done this too, it basically involves the same trick that py2app and ilk use to put an extension module in a zip file. Replace the extension with a .py that knows where to look for a platform-specific extension to import. Or, simply have an 'OBESE' distribution where you have a copy of everything for every platform :) -bob _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
