I tried a Makefile based build of python (+ some module) in the past for Android (and macos):
https://bitbucket.org/cavallo71/android
There was no particular problem in dropping autoconfigure+setup.py in the process: the only real problem was the pgen must be
compiled on the host machine (but that could have changed since).
In general python was a plain compile and link stuff with not much magic involved and that is (very) good in my opinion: magic
detection tends to fail, autoconfigure need to "execute" stuff to detect things (reason why is quite useless in cross-compile
mode) etc.
I would've tried also cmake and qmake builds as well, but simply I didn't have time to spend on it.
I hope this helps,
Antonio
Zachary Ware wrote:
> On Saturday, January 24, 2015, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org <mailto:brett at python.org>> wrote:
>
> On Fri Jan 23 2015 at 5:45:28 PM Gregory P. Smith <greg at krypto.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','greg at krypto.org');>> wrote:
>
> On Fri Jan 23 2015 at 11:20:02 AM M.-A. Lemburg <mal at egenix.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mal at egenix.com');>> wrote:
>
> On 23.01.2015 19:48, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > On 01/23/2015 06:30 PM, Cyd Haselton wrote:
> >> Related to my earlier question regarding building Python on Android
> >> and an undefined reference to dlopen error...I have the following
> >> question: Is it possible to build and install Python without having
> >> to build and install...or use...distutils?
> >>
> >> Some background:
> >> I can build the python interpreter on my device, and I can build a
> >> bunch of modules. The problem appears when make reaches the part
> >> where setup.py is used to build and import modules...specifically when
> >> setup.py attempts to import distutils.core.
> >
> > you can do this using Setup.local. This works for me building additional
> > extensions as builtins. It might require some tweaking to build everything.
>
> You may want to have a look at the Setup files we're using
> in eGenix PyRun, which uses them to force static builds of the
> various built-in extensions.
>
> Look for these files:
>
> PyRun/Runtime/Setup.PyRun-2.7
> PyRun/Runtime/Setup.PyRun-3.4
>
> in the source archives:
>
> http://www.egenix.com/__products/python/PyRun/ <http://www.egenix.com/products/python/PyRun/>
>
> > Otoh, I would like to get rid off the setup.py altogether (/me ducks ...).
>
> Why ? It's great for finding stuff on your system and configuring
> everything without user intervention (well, most of the time :-)).
>
>
> Because our setup.py is a nightmare of arbitrary code run in a linear fashion with ad-hoc checks for things that are
> unlike how any other project on the planet determines what is available on your system. It may have seemed "great" when
> it was created in 2001. It really shows its age now.
>
> It defeats build parallelism and dependency declaration.
> It also prevents cross compilation.
>
> Building an interpreter with a limited standard library on your build host so that you can run said interpreter to have
> it drive the remainder of your build is way more self hosting that we rightfully need to be for CPython.
>
>
> So are you suggesting to add the build rules to configure and the Makefile -- and Windows build file -- in order to drop
> setup.py?
>
>
> Windows already doesn't use setup.py. There are a lot more modules built-in on Windows, and others have their own project files;
> distutils isn't used at all.
>
>
> --
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/a.cavallo%40cavallinux.eu
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