It would be nice to know whether this information is correct, or whether I hold an invalid belief.
2017-09-30 20:09 GMT-05:00 xoviat <xov...@gmail.com>: > I have personally not built Python myself (though I've built many an > extension), but what I can say is that I got the idea from Larry Hastings. > According to him (this if for the Gilectomy fork): > > "Second, as you hack on the Gilectomy you may break your "python" > executable rather badly. This is of course expected. However, the python > Makefile itself depends on having a working local python interpreter, so > when you break that you often break your build too." > > 2017-09-30 19:59 GMT-05:00 Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io>: > >> >> >> On Sep 30, 2017, at 3:52 PM, xoviat <xov...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I don't think CPython needs to bundle all of its build-time dependencies. >> That principle doesn't really apply to other Python programs nor most other >> programs in general. AFAIK, CPython already has a build-time dependency on >> another, external, Python, so it wouldn't be too much to require the >> external Python to have setuptools installed with something like >> pyproject.toml (other programming languages usually bootstrap themselves >> with previous versions of the language along with some associated build >> tools). >> >> >> As far as I can tell, CPython does *not* have a build time dependency on >> having Python available. I just spun up a bare alpine linux container and >> compiled CPython `master` branch on it. As far as I can tell the only >> Python that exists in this container is the one I just compiled. >> >> That means that in order for CPython to depend on distutils to build as >> you indicate, it would also need to start depending on an existing version >> of Python being available. I don’t think that’s a great idea. I think >> Python should not depend on Python to build. >> > >
_______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
