On Wednesday, 2009-11-11, at 20:10 , <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yep, it works. So how do I integrate this change to pycryptopp > with the tahoe build process? I *could* install pycryptopp as > root, then let tahoe see that pycryptopp already exists, but I > would rather do all of this without being root. I like your style with regard to that. How about repack the pycryptopp project with "python setup.py sdist" or "python setup.py bdist_egg" and then put the resulting file into a subdirectory named "tahoe-deps" (as configured in setup.cfg [1]). If you create a source distribution with "sdist" then it will be compiled after being unpacked. If you create a binary distribution with "bdist_egg" then it will be compiled before being packed. If this all works then we should patch pycryptopp itself [2], but I don't yet know when we should trigger this configuration -- whenever the OS is detected to be OpenBSD? And I don't yet know if that long path you used is right for all OpenBSD's. > I'll mention again, the fact that the temporary pycryptopp build > area gets automatically deleted when something goes wrong is a > bug. I wish I could let it fail, then edit and rerun pycryptopp's > setup.py, and then rerun tahoe's setup.py to pick up where I left > off. Automation is great until it doesn't handle error recovery > gracefully. If it is a bug, it is a bug in setuptools. But if it didn't clean up automatically then when would those directories get cleaned up? Regards, Zooko [1] http://allmydata.org/trac/tahoe/browser/setup.cfg?rev=3996 [2] http://allmydata.org/trac/pycryptopp/browser/setup.py?rev=661 _______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list [email protected] http://allmydata.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
