Barry Warsaw wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Nov 9, 2006, at 2:15 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>> Martin> In any case, the patch being contributed uses SCons. If
>> people
>> Martin> think this is unmaintainable, this is a reason to
>> reject the
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 9, 2006, at 2:15 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Martin> In any case, the patch being contributed uses SCons. If
> people
> Martin> think this is unmaintainable, this is a reason to
> reject the
> Martin> patch.
>
> Could SCons
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
> Someone (I don't know who) submitted a patch to use SCons for building
> modules in cross-compilation contexts. Either the author tried to shoehorn
> this into distutils and failed or never tried (maybe because using SCons for
> such takss is much easier - who knows?).
David Boddie schrieb:
> It seems that Martin's patch solves some problems I encountered more cleanly
> (in certain respects) than the solutions I came up with. Here are some
> issues I encountered (from memory):
Just let me point out that it is not my patch:
http://python.org/sf/841454
was contr
>> Could SCons replace distutils?
Chris> If SCons replaced Distutils would SCons have to become part of
Chris> Python? Is SCons ready for that? What do you do about the
Chris> existing body 3rd party extensions that are already using
Chris> Distutils?
Sorry, my question was
Chris Lambacher schrieb:
> I think a better question is what about Distutils hinders cross-compiler
> scenarios and how to we fix those deficiencies?
It's primarily the lack of contributions. Somebody would have to define
a cross-compilation scenario (where "use Cygwin on Linux" is one that
might
On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 01:15:15PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Martin> In any case, the patch being contributed uses SCons. If people
> Martin> think this is unmaintainable, this is a reason to reject the
> Martin> patch.
>
> Could SCons replace distutils?
If SCons replaced Di
Martin> In any case, the patch being contributed uses SCons. If people
Martin> think this is unmaintainable, this is a reason to reject the
Martin> patch.
Could SCons replace distutils?
Skip
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
Anthony Baxter schrieb:
> So we'd now have 3 places to update when things change (setup.py, PCbuild
> area, SCons)? How does this deal with the problems that autoconf has with
> cross-compilation? It would seem to me that just fixing the extension module
> building is a tiny part of the problem.
On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 04:42:48PM +0100, David Boddie wrote:
> On Thu Nov 9 07:45:30 CET 2006, Anthony Baxter wrote:
>
> > On Thursday 09 November 2006 16:30, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> > > Patch #841454 takes a stab at cross-compilation
> > > (for MingW32 on a Linux system, in this case),
> > > an
On Thu Nov 9 07:45:30 CET 2006, Anthony Baxter wrote:
> On Thursday 09 November 2006 16:30, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> > Patch #841454 takes a stab at cross-compilation
> > (for MingW32 on a Linux system, in this case),
> > and proposes to use SCons instead of setup.py
> > to compile extension modul
Anthony> So we'd now have 3 places to update when things change
Anthony> (setup.py, PCbuild area, SCons)?
Four. You forgot Modules/Setup...
Skip
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-d
On Thursday 09 November 2006 16:30, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Patch #841454 takes a stab at cross-compilation
> (for MingW32 on a Linux system, in this case),
> and proposes to use SCons instead of setup.py
> to compile extension modules. Usage of SCons
> would be restricted to cross-compilation (fo
Patch #841454 takes a stab at cross-compilation
(for MingW32 on a Linux system, in this case),
and proposes to use SCons instead of setup.py
to compile extension modules. Usage of SCons
would be restricted to cross-compilation (for
the moment).
What do you think?
Regards,
Martin
_
14 matches
Mail list logo
