Re: [Numpy-discussion] arrayobject.h (and friends) install location

[Alexander B. <ale...@gm...>]

On 1/17/06, Travis Oliphant <oli...@ie...> wrote:
> Andrew Straw wrote:
> ...
> This is the important point in this discussion.   There was a reason it
> was changed.  I remember opposing the change, originally.  However, it
> solved a real problem and only required people to give up their
> arbitrary notions of where include files *should* be.  I don't see this
> as a real issue since you can get where the include files are very easily=
.
>
I don't have any "arbitrary notions of where include files *should*
be" and I have no opposition to the current location.  The only thing
I dislike is that the needs of a particular site situation were
addressed by misdiscribing the package structure to distutils rather
than by adding a default site.cfg file to the distribution that users
with different needs can easily edit.

Another concern is that if numpy will ever be considered for inclusion
in the standard "batteries included" python distribution, the same
issue will rise again.

-- sasha