On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 3:21 AM, Ondrej Certik <ond...@certik.cz> wrote: > Hi David, > >> Sorry for the confusion: numscons is NOT the preferred build system. >> The current numpy.distutils extensions, as shipped by numpy, is the >> preferred one. Numscons is more an experiment, if you want. > > Ah, I see, thanks for the clarification. > >>> So is it supposed to be in Debian? >> >> No, I don't think it should be. It is not yet stabilized code wise, so >> it does not make much sense to package it. > > Ok. > >> >>> Is numscons supposed to be >>> a build system for other projects as well? Why not to just send the >>> needed patches to scons and just use scons? >> >> Because you cannot just use scons. Numscons is a library build on top >> of scons, for the needs of numpy. There also needs to be some hook >> from numpy.distutils to use scons (numscons adds a new distutils >> command, which is used instead of build to build any compiled >> code-based extensions). Most of the changes needed for scons have been >> integrated upstream, though, except one or two things. > > I see. I think it's a bit confusing that one needs to build a new > build system just to build numpy, e.g. that both distutils and scons > are not good enough.
I don't find it that surprising - numpy and scipy require some relatively advanced features (mixed language and cross-platform with support for many toolchains). Within the open source tools, I know only two which can handle those requirements: scons and cmake. For example, it would almost impossible to build numpy/scipy with autoconf. David _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
