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

[M.-A. Lemburg]

"A.M. Kuchling" wrote:
> 
> I began writing the fabled fancy setup script described in PEP 229,
> and then realized there was duplication going on here.  The code in
> setup.py would need to know what libraries, #defines, &c., are needed
> by each module in order to check if they're needed and set them.  But
> if Modules/Setup can be used to override setup.py's behaviour, then
> much of this information would need to be in that file, too; the
> details of compiling a module are in two places.
> 
> Possibilities:
> 
> 1) Setup contains fully-loaded module descriptions, and the setup
>    script drops unneeded bits.  For example, the socket module
>    requires -lnsl on some platforms.  The Setup file would contain
>    "socket socketmodule.c -lnsl" on all platforms, and setup.py would
>    check for an nsl library and only use if it's there.
> 
>    This seems dodgy to me; what if -ldbm is needed on one platform and
>    -lndbm on another?

Can't distutils try both and then settle for the working combination ?

[distutils isn't really ready for auto-configure yet, but Greg
has already provided most of the needed functionality -- it's just
not well integrated into the rest of the build process in version 1.0.1
... BTW, where is Gerg ? I haven't heard from him in quite a while.]
 
> 2) Drop setup completely and just maintain setup.py, with some
>    different overriding mechanism.  This is more radical.  Adding a
>    new module is then not just a matter of editing a simple text file;
>    you'd have to modify setup.py, making it more like maintaining an
>    autoconf script.

Why not parse Setup and use it as input to distutils setup.py ?
 
> Remember, the underlying goal of PEP 229 is to have the out-of-the-box
> Python installation you get from "./configure;make" contain many more
> useful modules; right now you wouldn't get zlib, syslog, resource, any
> of the DBM modules, PyExpat, &c.  I'm not wedded to using Distutils to
> get that, but think that's the only practical way; witness the hackery
> required to get the DB module automatically compiled.
> 
> You can also wave your hands in the direction of packagers such as
> ActiveState or Red Hat, and say "let them make to compile everything".
> But this problem actually inconveniences *me*, since I always build
> Python myself and have to extensively edit Setup, so I'd like to fix
> the problem.
> 
> Thoughts?

Nice idea :-)

-- 
Marc-Andre Lemburg
______________________________________________________________________
Company:                                        http://www.egenix.com/
Consulting:                                    http://www.lemburg.com/
Python Pages:                           http://www.lemburg.com/python/