Attachment 594636 Details for Bug 835432 – Email from author: suggestions for packaging

Email from author: suggestions for packaging

Re: PyCXX Fedora package request submitted.eml (text/plain), 3.22 KB, created by John Morris on 2012-06-26 23:49:34 UTC

(hide)

Description:

Filename:

MIME Type:

Creator: John Morris

Created: 2012-06-26 23:49:34 UTC

Size: 3.22 KB

patch

obsolete

>From: Barry Scott <barry@barrys-emacs.org>
>Subject: Re: PyCXX Fedora package request submitted
>Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 22:32:07 +0100
>To: John Morris <john@zultron.com>
>
>John,
>
>Thanks for getting in touch. I can offer some insight into what you are seei=
>ng and why.
>
>Beware that it is not possible to compile pycxx code into binary form becaus=
>e of the issues of compiler options leading to incompatible .o files. For ex=
>ample some projects use rtti others do not and you have to compile from sour=
>ce to change this. Also note that you save very little by attempting to prov=
>ide a compiled lib. Most of the code is templated.
>
>I can think of atleast three ways the .o code can be made different:
>* RTTI
>* exception handling
>* -D used to modify behavior
>
>Your options are (1) leave project to embed pycxx - i encourage this as it a=
>void issues of compatiblity or (2) install the sources and headers but leave=
> compling to the project make files.
>
>This came up with pysvn that uses pycxx. I embed a version of pycxx that I h=
>ave tested with pysvn and know works. I believe that pysvn continues to use e=
>mbedded pycxx on Fedora.
>
>The lack of a setup.py is because of the reasons above, i consider it is not=
> required.
>
>Barry
>
>
>
>On 26 Jun 2012, at 20:43, John Morris <john@zultron.com> wrote:
>
>> Another thought about how to package I'd like to run by you (I understand i=
>f you're not concerned about packaging, but maybe this is a general usage qu=
>estion):
>>=20
>> What if the headers went into /usr/include/CXX, and the sources were compi=
>led and linked into a static lib that lived in /usr/lib{,64}/CXX.a?  This wo=
>uld be quite typical for a Fedora/RH -devel package.  I don't know how it wo=
>uld PyCXX users; perhaps their Makefiles would need to be changed to not com=
>pile things in the Src directory, but to link against CXX.a.
>>=20
>> If that sounds reasonable, do you have any thoughts about whether that cou=
>ld be built into setup.py?
>>=20
>>    John
>>=20
>>=20
>> On 06/26/2012 02:57 AM, John Morris wrote:
>>> Hi Barry,
>>>=20
>>> I'm helping with packaging FreeCAD for Fedora (RPMForge repos). FreeCAD
>>> currently bundles PyCXX, against Fedora guidelines. I've unbundled it,
>>> and written a 'python-pycxx' package and submitted it for review to Fedor=
>a:
>>>=20
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3D835432
>>>=20
>>> Packaging PyCXX is a little funny, since the headers and C/C++ files
>>> aren't installed by setup.py, so there's no standard location for those.
>>> Does that assessment sound correct? My package emulates the Debian and
>>> RPMForge packages, which install headers into /usr/include/python*/CXX
>>> and sources into /usr/share/python*/CXX.
>>>=20
>>> As part of the same effort to unbundle PyCXX from FreeCAD, I also wrote
>>> a cmake module for PyCXX. It looks for PyCXX in those places, and in the
>>> parent directory. I'm no cmake expert, but if the FreeCAD maintainers
>>> and RPM reviewers approve it, and you're interested, I'll send you links.=
>
>>>=20
>>> Thanks for the great software! I'm putting together a whole toolchain
>>> for creating 3D models and sending them to a CNC router or other
>>> machine, all python, and FreeCAD is an important piece.
>>>=20
>>> John
>>=20

Actions: View

Attachments on bug 835432: 594412 | 594636