From: Eric F. <ef...@ha...> - 2013-01-07 17:29:16
|
On 2013/01/07 7:24 AM, Benjamin Root wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Thomas Kluyver <th...@kl... > <mailto:th...@kl...>> wrote: > > On 7 January 2013 16:57, Benjamin Root <ben...@ou... > <mailto: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, What specific problem with our present system would you be trying to solve? I'm with Thomas on this--and there's a reason why people keep trying to develop new build systems, like cmake, scons, and waf, instead of being content with autotools. Eric > > Ben Root |