[Distutils] Re: build_ext.py rev 1.27 :distutils broken

[Greg Ward]

On 30 March 2000, Joe Van Andel said:
> I updated my distutils from cvs and installed them.  Now, when I try to
> build my application, I get:
[...]
> "/usr/lib/python1.5/site-packages/distutils/command/build_ext.py", line
> 1
> 92, in run
>     self.build_extensions ()
> TypeError: not enough arguments; expected 2, got 1

Arghh!  Sorry about that: sloppy and inexcusable.  Somebody slap me with
a wet noodle.  Fixed in CVS now.

> Not to be picky, but I'd certainly appreciate better regression testing
> on distutils, so these trival errors don't occur.   

That's a completely fair complaint, and one that I hope to start
addressing Real Soon Now with a proper test suite.  However, right now
I'm smack dab in the middle of adding the "bdist" command with the
ability to create a "dumb" binary distribution -- a tarball or zip file
that you unpack in $prefix or $exec_prefix to "install" a module
distribution.  (This is a stepping stone on the way to creating a
"smart" binary distribution, like an RPM or Wise installed for Windows.)

Adding support for this has meant revisiting a lot of stable code, and
taking advantage of the revisiting to refactor, rethink, and otherwise
raise hell.  Long term, this is a good thing, but in the short term, the
lack of a test suite makes it a wee bit dangerous -- eg. I risk causing
stupid breakage in the CVS tree that brave adventurers like you might
stumble upon.

This *particular* bit of breakage was *really* stupid, and there's no
need for a test suite to catch it: I should have just gone and done a
quick build of NumPy or PIL to make sure it was still working.  I
didn't, and I feel (and look) stupid.  Sorry again.

However, when you follow the CVS tree day-to-day, you've got to expect
some breakage.  I *really* appreciate the fact that you and a few other
folks *are* following the CVS day-to-day, and I apologize for wasting
your time with trivial breakage like this.  I'll try to only check in
real serious breakage in the future, to give you guys something to sink
your teeth into.  >grin<

> Would you consider tagging CVS revisions for additional sub-releases,
> like
> Distutils_0_1_3a, so we'd know what it likely to be stable?  As it is, I
> think I'll have to save a working copy of distutils, before I update
> from CVS.

Hmmm... that's an idea.  I think I prefer the dated snapshot approach,
though.  I got lazy there because a number of people told me it wasn't
really necessary, but I think it might be after all.  A dated snapshot
just says, "Here, the code was fairly stable and seemed to be working
when I made this" -- which I think is what you want.  I have explicitly
*not* tagged the tree when making a snapshot, and I have deleted old
snapshots -- that's to remind myself (and anyone else who cares) that
these are *not* releases.

So I probably *should* have made a snapshot before I started breaking
things to support the "bdist" command -- too late now, unless I indulge
in some CVS-sponsored time travel.  I *will* make a snapshot when the
create-a-dumb-binary-distribution stuff is working.  It's entirely
possible that that snapshot will be the same as what's included in the
snapshot Guido will create soon (tomorrow?) called "Python 1.6 alpha1".
;-)

        Greg
-- 
Greg Ward - software developer                    gward@cnri.reston.va.us
Corporation for National Research Initiatives    
1895 Preston White Drive                           voice: +1-703-620-8990
Reston, Virginia, USA  20191-5434                    fax: +1-703-620-0913