Neil Schemenauer wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 12:04:54AM +0100, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > > What about that file ? Are you saying that Makefile.pre.in > > will no longer work in 2.1 ??? > > I'm talking about Objects/Makefile.in. Which Makefile.pre.in are > you talking about? Modules/Makefile.pre.in is dead too. There > is a Makefile.pre.in in the toplevel directory which does the > same thing. There is also Misc/Makefile.pre.in. That file gets > installed into lib and still works as it aways did. The toplevel > Makefile.pre.in can use Modules/Setup* just like the old > Modules/Makefile.pre.in could. Does this address your concerns? Yes. Thanks. I was talking about the Misc/Makefile.pre.in mechanism which was used in the past by many Python C extensions to provide a portable of compiling the extension into a shared module or statically into the Python interpreter. I have been using that mechanism for years now and with much success. Even though I am currently moving to distutils I have no idea how stable distutils is on exotic platforms or ones which have special needs (like e.g. AIX). > > Please don't remove that mechanism -- it has been in use for > > quite a while and is much more stable than distutils. We should > > at least wait a few more distutils releases for the dust to > > settle before removing the old fallback solution. > > No doubt. Ok. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg ______________________________________________________________________ Company: http://www.egenix.com/ Consulting: http://www.lemburg.com/ Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4