[Numpy-discussion] Bitting the bullet: using scons to build extensions inside distutils ?
Charles R Harris
Sat Sep 15 14:02:53 CDT 2007
On 9/15/07, David Cournapeau <email@example.com> wrote:
> Starting thinking over the whole distutils thing, I was thinking
> what people would think about using scons inside distutils to build
> extension. The more I think about it, the more I think than distutils
> not being maintained, and numpy/scipy building needs being much more
> complicated (at least different) than usual python extension, trying
> to circumvent distutils problems is an ever ending fight. Scons, being
> developped as a Make replacement, can do all we would like to be able
> to do with distutils, including:
> - building shared or static libraries, with dependencies (knows how
> to do it on many platforms).
> - can build each object file independently (e.g different compiler
> - is much much friendlier than distutils.
> - can handle external tools like swig, etc...
> - have basic facility to look for libraries (ala autoconf. By basic,
> I mean it is far from being as complete as autoconf, but is much
> better than distutils).
> Scons has also the following advantages:
> - written in python, can be distributed with numpy (by this, I mean
> AFAIK, license-wise, it is ok, and its size is not big): does not add
> additional dependency.
> - can be called within distutils quite easily.
> That is, I don't see big disadvantage to use it with distutils. It
> would give use some wanted features out of the box (building
> extensions based on ctypes, much friendlier way to customize building
I think there was a thread on this subject before, although I may be
thinking of another project. I would certainly welcome anything that made it
easier to understand the setup and configuration of numpy, but I am not one
of the build guys.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Numpy-discussion