GV

GeezerVison

The World Wide Web, restored to 800 pixels of glory.

Home|About|Gaming cabinet|Archives|How it works|Starter sites

On this site

  • [Python-Dev] What to do about PEP 229?
  • [Python-Dev] What to do about PEP 229?
  • [ date ]
  • [ thread ]
  • [ subject ]
  • [ author ]

This view

  • Original page
  • New address

GeezerVison is showing mail.python.org — [Python-Dev] What to do about PEP 229?

[Python-Dev] What to do about PEP 229?

Andrew Kuchling [email protected]
Sat, 16 Dec 2000 19:17:39 -0500

  • Previous message: [Python-Dev] What to do about PEP 229?
  • Next message: [Python-Dev] What to do about PEP 229?
  • Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 11:39:18PM +0100, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
>Can't distutils try both and then settle for the working combination ?

I'm worried about subtle problems; what if an unneeded -lfoo drags in
a customized malloc, or has symbols which conflict with some other
library.  

>... BTW, where is Greg ? I haven't heard from him in quite a while.]

Still around; he just hasn't been posting much these days.

>Why not parse Setup and use it as input to distutils setup.py ?

That was option 1.  The existing Setup format doesn't really contain
enough intelligence, though; the intelligence is usually in comments
such as "Uncomment the following line for Solaris".  So either the
Setup format is modified (bad, since we'd break existing 3rd-party
packages that still use a Makefile.pre.in), or I give up and just do
everything in a setup.py.

--amk



  • Previous message: [Python-Dev] What to do about PEP 229?
  • Next message: [Python-Dev] What to do about PEP 229?
  • Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
You are visitor 01402520 — GeezerVison does not store the pages you look up.
Best viewed with Netscape Navigator 4.7 or Internet Explorer 6 at 800×600. No cookies required.