On 06/21/2012 11:04 PM, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
On 6/21/12 10:46 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
...
I think we should, as you proposed, list a few projects w/ compilation
needs -- from the simplest to the more complex, then see how a standard
*description* could be used by any tool
It's not clear to me what you mean by description. Package metadata,
install information or description of what/how to build?
I hope you don't mean the latter, that would be insane...it would
effectively amount to creating a build tool that's both more elegant
and more powerful than any option that's currently already out there.
Assuming you mean the former, that's what David did to create Bento.
Reading and understanding Bento and the design decisions going into it
would be a better use of time than redoing a discussion, and would at
least be a very good starting point.
What I mean is : what would it take to use Bento (or another tool) as
the compiler in a distutils-based project, without having to change the
distutils metadata.
As for current distutils/setuptools/distribute metadata, the idea is you
run the bento conversion utility to convert it to Bento metadata, then
use Bento.
Please read
http://cournape.github.com/Bento/
There may be packages where this doesn't work and you'd need to tweak
the results yourself though.
Here's the flip side: If you have zero knowledge about compilers, it's
going to be almost impossible to have a meaningful discussion about a
compilation PEP. It's very hard to discuss standards unless everybody
involved have the necessary prerequisite knowledge. You don't go
discussing details of the Linux kernel without some solid C experience
either.
Consider me as the end user that want to have his 2 C modules compiled
in their Python project.
OK, so can I propose that you kill off distutils2 and use bento
wholesale instead?
Obviously not. So you're not just an end-user. That illusion would wear
rather thin very quickly.
The necessary prerequisites in this case is not merely "knowledge of
compilers". To avoid repeating mistakes of the past, the prerequisites
for a meaningful discussion is years of hard-worn experience building
software in various languages, on different platforms, using different
build tools.
Look, these problems are really hard to deal with. Myself I have
experience with building 2-3 languages using 2-3 build tools on 2
platforms, and I consider myself a complete novice and usually decide
to trust David's instincts over trying to make up an opinion of my own
-- simply because I know he's got a lot more experience than I have.
Theoretically it is possible to separate and isolate concerns so that
one set of people discuss build integration and another set of people
discuss installation. Problem is that all the problems tangle -- in
particular when the starting point is distutils!
That's why *sometimes*, not always, design by committee is the wrong
approach, and one-man-shows is what brings technology forwards.
I am not saying this should be designed by a commitee, but rather - if
such a tool can be made compatible with simple Distutils project, the
guy behind this tool can probably help on a PEP with feedback from a
larger audience than the sci community.
What bugs me is to say that we live in two separate worlds and cannot
build common pieces. This is not True.
I'm not saying it's *impossible* to build common pieces, I'm suggesting
that it's not cost-effective in terms of man-hours going into it. And
the problem isn't technical as much as social and the mix of people and
skill sets involved.
But David really made that decision for me when he left distutils-sig,
I'm not going to spend my own time and energy trying to get decent
builds shoehorned into distutils2 when he is busy working on a solution.
(David already spent loads of time on trying to integrate scons with
distutils (the numscons project) and maintained numpy.distutils and
scipy builds for years; I trust his judgement above pretty much anybody
else's.)
So, I reiterate my proposal, and it could also be expressed like this:
1/ David writes a PEP where he describes how Bento interact with a
project -- metadata, description files, etc
2/ Someone from distutils2 completes the PEP by describing how setup.cfg
works wrt Extensions
3/ we see if we can have a common standard even if it's a subset of
bento capabilities
bento isn't a build tool, it's a packaging tool, competing directly
with distutils2. It can deal with simple distutils-like builds using a
bundled build tool, and currently has integration with waf for
complicated builds; integration with other build systems will
presumably be added later as people need it (the main point is that
bento is designed for it).
I am not interested in Bento-the-tool. I am interested in what such a
tool needs from a project to use it =>
Again, you should read the elevator pitch at
http://cournape.github.com/Bento/ + the Bento documentation.
"It can deal with simple distutils-like builds using a bundled build
tool" => If I understand this correctly, does that mean that Bento can
build a distutils project with the distutils Metadata ?
Sorry, what I meant with "distutils-like builds" is "two simple C
extensions", i.e. the trivial build case.
Dag
_______________________________________________
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
