Jean-Claude Wippler wrote: > On Oct 31, 2006, at 13:16, Ralf Schmitt wrote: >> >> - metakit's python bindings won't compile on 64 bit platforms with >> python 2.5 (see http://systemexit.de/repo/metakit?cs=9bed59f5a499 for a >> fix). > > Integrated with cvs HEAD, thx.
I've forgot another change (not related to python 2.5, but 64 bit platforms): http://systemexit.de/repo/metakit?cs=f8f1ef2f6099 > >> - there's also a memleak in the python bindings as noted by zooko in >> january (http://www.equi4.com/pipermail/metakit/2006-January/002170.html) > > See the follow-up: the unbounded mem use came from not doing any commits. > >> and by brian warner a few weeks ago: >> http://www.equi4.com/pipermail/metakit/2006-October/002229.html > > I've included these changes as well, thank you Brian. I thought they were the same, but I might be wrong. > > Building via "sh configure --with-python=/usr" seems to be ok, but the now > more common "cd python; python setup.py build" method fails: > > $ python setup.py build > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "setup.py", line 166, in ? > metakit = sys.modules['metakit'] > KeyError: 'metakit' > > If someone wants to improve the Python build structure, please please do > so - we've been balancing between autoconf and distutils for some time > now, and unfortunately this seems to be a source of confusion and what's > worse: failed builds. See also: > http://www.equi4.com/cgi-bin/cvstrac/metakit/tktview?tn=12 > > I don't understand why the python/setup.py file has to be so complex - > but I'm not well versed in this and very reluctant to start changing it > myself. > I have a scons file which builds the python bindings (and also replaces the autoconf tests). This is much better for development (as it tracks dependencies). But anyway, this isn't the standard python method of building an extension. - Ralf _____________________________________________ Metakit mailing list - [email protected] http://www.equi4.com/mailman/listinfo/metakit
