Yes, you can't use the in-place stuff without messing with the PYTHONPATH
variable. But that's expected. I just find it much better to test in-place,
changing anything that's needed.
You can send the patch, I will review it and commit it.
Thanks,
Filipe
On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Charles Davis wrote:
>
> On Sep 21, 2012, at 7:21 AM, Filipe Cabecinhas wrote:
>
> > Hi George,
> >
> > No patch was proposed. I am patching the Makefiles to make them do what
> > they should do (The swig stuff was completely out of sync with the Xcode
> > projects, for example).
> > But I still haven't touched the install phase. The regular, in-place, stuff
> > is now better (at least it should be. I've been testing on FreeBSD), and
> > I'm planning on cleaning up the Makefiles during next week, tops.
> > If you ant, you can try to fix that install phase problem and I can commit
> > the patch for you.
>
>
>
> I don't know about this. Many Python installs aren't configured to look
> outside their installation prefixes for Python modules. I know the default
> Python on Mac OS X isn't, and I imagine that most default Python installs on
> other systems aren't, either.
>
> The problem is that, if --prefix isn't specified, configure provides a
> default. What we want is to use the prefix specified with --prefix *if* it is
> specified, but install to the default Python site-specific packages directory
> otherwise. This is really important on Mac OS with the system Python, because
> there the right directory is not /usr/lib/pythonX.Y/site-packages, or even
> ${prefix}/lib/pythonX.Y/site-packages, but /Library/Python/X.Y/site-packages.
>
> Personally, I think the right solution is to add a
> '--with-python-prefix=<prefix>' option to configure, and default to the
> site-specific Python directory if it isn't specified. That way, we avoid all
> the headaches associated with --prefix. The downside, of course, is that now
> you have to specify another option to configure, but I think that's
> acceptable.
>
> If you want, I'll make a patch against LLVM to add this option, and patches
> against Clang and LLDB to use it. OK?
>
> Chip
>
>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Filipe
> >
> >
> > On Friday, September 21, 2012 at 1:38 PM, George Russell wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I am encountering this problem on Linux as of revision 164291. Was a
> > > patch ever proposed, or accepted, for this issue?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > George
> > >
> > > On 08/03/2012 11:56 PM, Malea, Daniel wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I built LLDB on Linux recently, and I noticed that "make install"
> > > > doesn't complete successfully as of the latest trunk revision.
> > > >
> > > > After some makefile digging, I found the cause is that make and tries
> > > > to copy the python modules to "/usr/lib/pythonX.Y/site-packages" or in
> > > > "/lldb" if the site-packages directory does not exist...thereby
> > > > disregarding the "--prefix" flag specified at configure-time. This may
> > > > cause some headaches for users without root access.
> > > >
> > > > I'm wondering if this is intended (and if someone depends on this
> > > > behaviour) or if it would be acceptable for me to submit a patch that
> > > > fixes the problem by putting the python modules in the directory
> > > > specified by the --prefix option?
> > > >
> > > > Naturally, if users want a global install of the lldb modules, they can
> > > > always configure "--prefix=/usr"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Dan
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > lldb-dev mailing list
> > > > [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])
> > > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > George Russell
> > > Director of Quality Assurance
> > > Codeplay Software Ltd
> > > 45 York Place, Edinburgh, EH1 3HP
> > > Tel: 0131 466 0503
> > > Fax: 0131 557 6600
> > > Website: http://www.codeplay.com
> > > Twitter: https://twitter.com/codeplaysoft
> > >
> > > This email and any attachments may contain confidential and /or
> > > privileged information and is for use by the addressee only. If you are
> > > not the intended recipient, please notify Codeplay Software Ltd
> > > immediately and delete the message from your computer. You may not copy
> > > or forward it,or use or disclose its contents to any other person. Any
> > > views or other information in this message which do not relate to our
> > > business are not authorized by Codeplay software Ltd, nor does this
> > > message form part of any contract unless so stated.
> > >
> > > As internet communications are capable of data corruption Codeplay
> > > Software Ltd does not accept any responsibility for any changes made to
> > > this message after it was sent. Please note that Codeplay Software Ltd
> > > does not accept any liability or responsibility for viruses and it is
> > > your responsibility to scan any attachments.
> > > Company registered in England and Wales, number: 04567874
> > > Registered office: 81 Linkfield Street, Redhill RH1 6BY
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > lldb-dev mailing list
> > > [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])
> > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > lldb-dev mailing list
> > [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])
> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>
_______________________________________________
lldb-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
