[issue44445] Add `site-include` install scheme path in sysconfig

[Dmitry Shachnev]

Change by Dmitry Shachnev :


--
nosy: +mitya57

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue44445] Add `site-include` install scheme path in sysconfig

[Stefano Rivera]

Change by Stefano Rivera :


--
nosy: +stefanor

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue44445] Add `site-include` install scheme path in sysconfig

[Petr Viktorin]

Change by Petr Viktorin :


--
keywords: +patch
nosy: +petr.viktorin
nosy_count: 7.0 -> 8.0
pull_requests: +27958
stage:  -> patch review
pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/29578

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue44445] Add `site-include` install scheme path in sysconfig

[Filipe Laíns]

Filipe Laíns  added the comment:

distutils will install the headers to 
{base}/include/python{py_version_short}{abiflags}/{dist_name}, and I think 
probably the best option would be to do the same. So, I think we could add a 
site-include scheme like I described and have the installers append a directory 
with the distribution name to it.

I think it would be reasonable to put all headers in a shared directory, 
site-include, given that we make sure the installers put them in a subdirectory 
for each distribution.

About standardizing pkg-config-like metadata, I don't think that's a great 
idea, as it would not replace the mechanisms you mentioned. It might replace 
some, but not all, as there could always be a use-case that needs more 
information or interaction than what our standard may provide.

Does this make sense to you?

--

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue44445] Add `site-include` install scheme path in sysconfig

[Steve Dower]

Steve Dower  added the comment:

distutils.sysconfig doesn't expose the headers path either, it's only there as 
a default value for the install command (Lib/distutils/command/install.py).

So it doesn't seem unreasonable to provide a recommendation on where to put 
shared header files and let installers do their own calculation. If an 
installer wants to install into _another_ environment, it can't rely on 
sysconfig anyway, so we need the spec as well as any implementation. And if we 
don't have the spec then people will have to reverse-engineer the 
implementation anyway, so we may as well start with the spec.

Now, whether we actually need or want packages dumping all their headers in one 
directory is a different question. At least on some platforms they'll also need 
to import libraries too, and tools like Cython have different files yet again. 
Many existing project keep these files inside their package and offer the path 
on request (e.g. pybind11), so perhaps we actually want to standardise 
pkg-config-like metadata instead?

(Also crossposting back to the discuss thread)

--

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com

[issue44445] Add `site-include` install scheme path in sysconfig

[Filipe Laíns]

New submission from Filipe Laíns :

During the distutils deprecation, we have identified that there is no good 
replacement for the distutils `headers` install path. This path defines where 
packages are supposed to install headers on the system.

The setuptools equivalent would be `include`/`platinclude`, but these paths 
depend on `installed_base`/`installed_platbase`, which makes them the same on 
virtual environments. For this reason, they are not very suitable as a 
`headers` replacement -- if a package installs to `include` on a virtual 
environment, those files will be available everywhere.

{
...
'include': '{installed_base}/include/python{py_version_short}{abiflags}',
'platinclude': 
'{installed_platbase}/include/python{py_version_short}{abiflags}',
}

I propose introducing two new paths, `site-include` and `site-platinclude`, as 
follows:

{
...
'include': '{installed_base}/include/python{py_version_short}{abiflags}',
'platinclude': 
'{installed_platbase}/include/python{py_version_short}{abiflags}',
'site-include': '{base}/include/python{py_version_short}{abiflags}-site',
'site-platinclude': 
'{platbase}/include/python{py_version_short}{abiflags}-site',
}

This would make them different paths on virtual environments and would allow us 
to install header files there instead of `include`/`platinclude`.

Does anyone have a better idea? Or is there perhaps something I have missed?

---

Hopefully, this could go into Python 3.10, so that users can easily replace 
distutils usages with sysconfig. I understand if that may be unlikely.

---

Relevant links:
https://discuss.python.org/t/clarification-on-a-wheels-header-data/9305
https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/9617

--
messages: 396004
nosy: FFY00, dstufft, eric.araujo, jaraco, pablogsal, steve.dower, tarek
priority: high
severity: normal
status: open
title: Add `site-include` install scheme path in sysconfig
versions: Python 3.10

___
Python tracker 

___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe: 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com