On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Greg Ewing <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > David Cournapeau wrote: >> >> One of the >> main argument to avoid rewrite is that you will end up doing the same >> mistakes, and old code is more complicated because it has been tested. >> But here, we know what a good design is like as other languages have >> vastly superior solutions to this problem. > > Also, it seems to me that in this case, the basic > architecture of distutils is already so full of > mistakes that there just isn't an incremental way > of getting to a better place, especially given the > requirement of not breaking any existing setup.py > scripts together with the fact that the API of distutils > effectively consists of its *entire implementation*. > > So while complete rewrites are best avoided *if possible*, > I don't think we have a choice in this case.
While "build_ext" is not handy, I don't buy the fact that Distutils is "full of mistakes". We have to work with use cases. David gave a use case: being able to compile cython or assembly files. I proposed a solution based on being able to define a compiler at the Extension level, rather that for the entire build_ext command. If the answer to that solution is just: "Distutils sucks anyways..", it is not really helpfull imho.. I don't see the point to write Distutils from scratch, instead of making it evolve. Tarek _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
