On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Robert Bradshaw <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 11:17 PM, David Cournapeau <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Our problems would be highly reduced if setuptools knew about Cython, >>> simply by doing "have_cython_or_pyrex" instead of "have_pyrex", same >>> for distutils. If one of the core developers can push for that simply >>> acceptance, then wonderful. >> >> FWIW, that's exactly what's broken in distutils. The very fact that >> setuptools needs to know about cython *is* the issue. Because later, >> you will have issue because of distribute instead of setuptools, and >> then distutils2, and who knows. > > Hence http://wiki.cython.org/enhancements/distutils_preprocessing .
THe problem of those solutions is that you are only moving the issue one layer above. For example, what if you wanted to generate .pyx from some .pyx.src, running through numpy templating system ? You need something more declarative in nature to be truely flexible IMO. Now, this is obviously a good enough solution in the short term. > > Of course having setuptools know about Cython would be a simple step > forward--is the maintainer likely to take a patch? You would have to ask both setuptools and distribute maintainers. I am not sure what the status of distribute is with the recent focus of distutils2 (which of course has exactly the same issue, except that now the API is incompatible...). David _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
