From: Benjamin R. <ben...@ou...> - 2013-01-07 17:24:48
|
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Thomas Kluyver <th...@kl...>wrote: > On 7 January 2013 16:57, Benjamin Root <ben...@ou...> wrote: > >> I was just reading some comments from Richard Stallman on ./ when I >> noticed that he pointed out a useful autoconf feature that was added >> somewhat recently. Essentially, this feature would allow one to do a >> build/install of a python module using the "./configure; make install" >> approach, if one chooses. Maybe it should be something to consider adding >> to our build system? > > > My 2 cents: I took over the maintenance of a Python project built by > autotools. The build system felt more complex than the actual application - > a fantastic world of .am files generating .in files generating Makefiles, > which themselves were packed with abstractions. I had little idea how to > change anything in the build process, and before long I ripped it out in > favour of setup.py, despite all distutils' flaws. > > I'm sure that's more a question of my experience than of autotools, but > I'd think twice before adding it to a project. > > Best wishes, > Thomas > > That's a very good point. I certainly don't want to add significant complexity to our build system. We certainly have enough of it as-is. I was hoping that there was a way to complement our setup.py approach. In other words, "python setup.py install" would be our primary means of build/install, while allowing for "make install" as an alternative. I have yet to actually look into how this current autoconf feature would work and if that is even possible. Ben Root |