On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 09:18:51AM -0800, Marek Szuba wrote: -> -> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:18:32 -0800 (PST) -> Istvan Albert <[email protected]> wrote: -> > I suppose it would be fairly straightforward to add a behavior that -> > falls back to regular extension building if pyrex is not present yet -> > the C files are there. -> -> Could you explain what the benefits of this approach would be comparing -> to keeping setup.py as it is?
This whole discussion seems to have fizzled :). Am I correct in summarizing that: - setup.py has been reduced to 70 lines of straightforward code by adding in a pyrex dependency; - with the addition of three lines (-> 73), we can remove the pyrex dependency, too? Even if pyrex is a compile-time dependency, I think we could provide eggs or packages that make it easy for people to install on multiple platforms without pyrex. I'm not sure how important it is for Joe Anybody to be able to compile pygr, as long as they can install it some other way. Thoughts? --titus -- C. Titus Brown, [email protected] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pygr-dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pygr-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
