[SciPy-dev] problems with numpy.setuptools...

Stefan van der Walt stefan@sun.ac...
Sat Sep 29 07:56:43 CDT 2007

Hi Pearu

On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 12:15:23AM +0300, Pearu Peterson wrote:
> > Why can't we instrument tests for distutils?  If the code is so confusing
> > that we can't test it (or "practical corner cases"), should we be
> > using it as a core ingredient in the first place?
> The code is not so confusing - it has well-defined (though undocumented)
> structure that can be extended after one gets an idea how things
> work in distutils.
> The variety of different compilers and platforms makes developing
> distutils difficult. I guess none of the developers who dare to
> touch distutils have access to all platforms and compilers that
> we are trying to support. This fact will not change after switching
> to some other tool such as scons.
> We actually have tests for distutils - see buildbot.scipy.org.

I should have distinguished between numpy.distutils and distutils in
my previous code.  I think numpy.distutils does as well as can be
expected based on (python) distutils.  If we were to design a build
system from the ground up, it would probably look very different.

> > David's idea of using scons to build everything sounds more appealing
> > by the day.  Distutils can still do the packaging, but at least we
> > would have a modularised, testable, no-hassles build environment.
> You obviously have little idea what does it mean to replace
> numpy.distutils with some other building tool;) Let this to be
> a challenge to work this out for anyone.

Would the effort be worth it in the end, if it allows more developers
to extend the build system (without worrying about the distutils
police at night)?

Maybe you're right: they say a person should be careful what you ask
for, lest it come true :)


More information about the Scipy-dev mailing list