[Numpy-discussion] [numscons] Would having two mandatory scons script per package be acceptable ?

Robert Kern robert.kern@gmail....
Thu Jun 12 00:02:06 CDT 2008

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 23:35, David Cournapeau
<david@ar.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp> wrote:
> Hi,
>    Short story: it would make my life simpler to have two mandatory
> scons scripts per package instead of only one. Long story: for some
> reasons linked to scons' notion of build directory, having two scons
> scripts files per package (instead of one) would simplify quite a bit
> some parts of numscons, as well as simplifying the addition of custom
> builders (for swig, cython, etc...) by other people. One of the two
> files would basically be exactly the same as the current one, and the
> other one independent of the package (always the same 3 lines). This is
> a bit ugly, but less ugly than the actual contortions I have to do to
> make scons and distutils play nice together.
>    Is there any strong feeling against this ?

Can you give me a longer story? What are the three lines? Why are they
necessary in a separate, boilerplate file?

Robert Kern

"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless
enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as
though it had an underlying truth."
 -- Umberto Eco

More information about the Numpy-discussion mailing list