Hi David, On 9/15/07, David Cournapeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Starting thinking over the whole distutils thing, I was thinking > what people would think about using scons inside distutils to build > extension. The more I think about it, the more I think than distutils > not being maintained, and numpy/scipy building needs being much more > complicated (at least different) than usual python extension, trying > to circumvent distutils problems is an ever ending fight. Scons, being > developped as a Make replacement, can do all we would like to be able > to do with distutils, including: > - building shared or static libraries, with dependencies (knows how > to do it on many platforms). > - can build each object file independently (e.g different compiler > options) > - is much much friendlier than distutils. > - can handle external tools like swig, etc... > - have basic facility to look for libraries (ala autoconf. By basic, > I mean it is far from being as complete as autoconf, but is much > better than distutils). > > Scons has also the following advantages: > - written in python, can be distributed with numpy (by this, I mean > AFAIK, license-wise, it is ok, and its size is not big): does not add > additional dependency. > - can be called within distutils quite easily. > > That is, I don't see big disadvantage to use it with distutils. It > would give use some wanted features out of the box (building > extensions based on ctypes, much friendlier way to customize building > option).
I think there was a thread on this subject before, although I may be thinking of another project. I would certainly welcome anything that made it easier to understand the setup and configuration of numpy, but I am not one of the build guys. Chuck
_______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
