[Numpy-discussion] preferred numpy build system

David Cournapeau cournape@gmail....
Sun Feb 8 05:10:08 CST 2009


On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 3:21 AM, Ondrej Certik <ondrej@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


More information about the Numpy-discussion mailing list