On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 11:27:29PM -0500, Tres Seaver wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Tarek Ziadé wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 3:35 AM, Christian Heimes <li...@cheimes.de> wrote: > > [..] > >> Do we really want to change distutils to solve a problem of a third > >> party packaging system when the problem was created by the very same > >> third party in the first place? In other words: Should you spend your > >> precious development time with fixing a problem that isn't our fault? > >> The decision to split the header files into a separate package, that > >> isn't installed by default, has already created tons of bad user > >> experience in the past. Do you want to endorse the split even further? > > > > I didn't know the split story went like this. I took it like the > > "natural" split everyone > > agreed on, and I saw this distutils <-> Makefile link like something to fix. > > > > So, it sounds like a bad idea now :) > > Parsing the Makefile at runtime seems like an insane choice anyway to > me: +1 for your new module having constants generated at ./configure time.
+1 There have been bugs in the past about distutils.sysconfig.parse_makefile() not knowing the full make syntax and there will no doubt still be bugs like this. Substituting these variables at ./configure time into a .py.in file would be much safer. Regards Floris -- Debian GNU/Linux -- The Power of Freedom www.debian.org | www.gnu.org | www.kernel.org _______________________________________________ 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
