> I'm not quite a '-1', but am a little confused about where this would leave > us. To some extent, this would formalize PCBuild8 and VC6 directories. > External tools would then slowly start growing support for these additional > directories and the previous benefits of "PCBuild is the canonical location" > appear to vanish. Further, I expect that such a patch would confuse any > attempts to manually copy from PCBuild8 into PCBuild, for example (ie, some > tools knowing about PCBuild8 while others assume PCBuild is likely to get > confusing.) > > Trent: I assume you use the same source tree for multiple platforms and > compilers, meaning that changing these "optional" build processes to copy > from PCBuild8/VC6 into PCBuild would cause pain? If not, do you think that > would be a reasonable solution?
Changing to have bits always in PCbuild would work for me -- i.e. I *don't* build for multiple compilers/platforms in the same tree. Perhaps that is a better solution -- in the long run, anyway. Having the "bits" always in one dir for whatever the configuration is more akin to the Unix-y configure/make system. Is this something that could work for Python 2.5? Or just 2.6? Long term/aside: Moving to a configure/make build system on Windows, as you proposed in your first email, would be interesting. With MSYS though, not cygwin (a la bsmedberg's new MozillaBuild stuff). I just wish there were an autoconf alternative that wasn't as painful as autoconf. I have a few attempts for my purposes that are written in Python (an obvious bootstrapping problem for building Python itself :). Trent -- Trent Mick trentm at activestate.com _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
