Re: [Numpy-discussion] Time for beta1 of NumPy 1.0

[Albert S. <fu...@gm...>]

Hey Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: num...@li... [mailto:numpy-
> dis...@li...] On Behalf Of Charles R Harris
> Sent: 01 July 2006 19:57
> To: Robert Kern
> Cc: num...@li...
> Subject: Re: [Numpy-discussion] Time for beta1 of NumPy 1.0
> 
> All,
> 
> This is bit off topic, but a while ago there were some complaints about
> the usefulness of distutils. I note that KDE has gone over to using cmake
> after trying scon. I am not familiar with cmake, but perhaps someone here
> knows more and can comment on its suitability.

CMake definately warrants investigation, but I think SCons might be a better
way to go. I think it would make it easier to reuse large parts of the
existing build code (e.g. conv_template.py could be converted into a SCons
builder without too much effort). Reusing parts of distutils and setuptools
would also be easier if the new tool is somehow Python-aware.

I think the main problem with distutils in the NumPy context is that it was
never designed to build C/Fortran code over so many platforms with to many
possible build configurations. python setup.py install works pretty well,
but any kind of non-default configuration can become a bit hairy, despite
the excellent work on NumPy extensions to distutils.

I'd like to take a stab at doing something with SCons in a few weeks' time.
Does anybody want to brainstorm on some ideas for what is needed from a
better build system for NumPy? Maybe a wiki page?

Regards,

Albert