Tres Seaver wrote: > Tarek Ziadé wrote: >> I didn't know the split story went like this. I took it like the >> "natural" split everyone >> agreed on, and I saw this distutils <-> Makefile link like something to fix. > >> So, it sounds like a bad idea now :) > > Parsing the Makefile at runtime seems like an insane choice anyway to > me: +1 for your new module having constants generated at ./configure time.
I'm with Tres here - having distutils (aside from build_ext) depend on non-Python parts of the source tree seem a little strange. However, given that the recommended packaging includes the needed files, putting an RFE on the tracker to reduce the runtime dependency on the source code would be an acceptable response if there is something else you'd rather be working on. Cheers, Nick. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ncoghlan%40gmail.com -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
