David Cournapeau wrote: > Bryce Hendrix wrote: > >> I've only been following this thread on the perimeter, so I'm not sure >> if "makefile" migration has been discussed. I have a script I wrote >> about a year ago when we (Enthought) were looking at using SCons for our >> internal builds. The script is capable of generating SConscript files >> from setup.py scripts. It works by faking a build with distutils and >> uses those build steps to generate the scons targets. >> >> The script is not complete, for example 'weave' confuses it, but it >> could be a good starting point. If anyone is interested in it, I'll post >> it to the list. >> >> > That sounds interesting. Do I understand correctly that you ditched > distutils entirely ? That's not the approach I have taken, because I > thought it would be too big (before inclusion in numpy, I need to show > something remotely impressive, to convince the change worths it), and > would prevent doing things iteratively (e.g. building numpy wo distutils > would be a huge task). For most subpackages of scipy, which have small > setup.py, this would be useful, I guess (for the packages I know, they > are independant, at least as far as build issues are concerned). > >
No, what I was investigating was whether we could auto-generate Sconscript files from setup.py scripts so our builds could reliably only build/test/document what was necessary. For example, our docs would take > 10 minutes to re-generate the whole thing, but if only 1 file changed, building the docs should take < 10 seconds. On top of that, there was a summer of code project in 2006 to add packaging (msi and rpm were the targeted formats), and we were looking at packaging in msi, rpm, and egg formats. I eventually got frustrated with the speed at which the SCons developers were willing to roll this change into the trunk, so I gave up and we moved on to a different solution. > I don't think any automated task would work for numpy: I spent a good > deal of time last WE to be able to build all extensions in numpy with > scons, and it is a lot of work, because of bootstrapping issues. If you > take into account the code generators, the numpy.core "Makefile" is more > than 1000 lines of non trivial code. I finally got my head around it, > but I don't think any automated scheme would work in this case. > Understood, especially since we could never auto-generate all of ours. Just thought I'd offer it, since its just bit-rotting in our internal repository right now. Bryce
_______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
