distutils is able to handle...

[mg]

Hello

I work on an finite element framework and Python bindings have been
developped.
Actually, we use Boost.Build as build system but we would like to change
it.

We have two kinds of problems. First, the framework is used for generate
pure C++ applications with static libraries ; second, the framework have
some dependencies to fortran projects.
Then, in order to know if Distutils can be use in our case, I would like
to know if :
- Can distutil compile static C/C++ libraries ?
- Can distutil compile C/C++ applications ?
- Can distutil manage fortran compiler and compile fortran libraries and
applications ?

Thank for your answers

 

[George Sakkis]

Hello

I work on an finite element framework and Python bindings have been
developped.
Actually, we use Boost.Build as build system but we would like to change
it.

We have two kinds of problems. First, the framework is used for generate
pure C++ applications with static libraries ; second, the framework have
some dependencies to fortran projects.
Then, in order to know if Distutils can be use in our case, I would like
to know if :
- Can distutil compile static C/C++ libraries ?
- Can distutil compile C/C++ applications ?
- Can distutil manage fortran compiler and compile fortran libraries and
applications ?

Thank for your answers

I don't think distutils can handle all these, especially the last one,
so I doubt it's the right tool in your case. I would suggest SCons
(http://www.scons.org/), a modern make/automake/autoconf replacement
that uses python for its configuration files instead of yet another
cryptic half-baked mini-language or XML.

George

 

[Robert Kern]

I don't think distutils can handle all these, especially the last one,
so I doubt it's the right tool in your case. I would suggest SCons
(http://www.scons.org/), a modern make/automake/autoconf replacement
that uses python for its configuration files instead of yet another
cryptic half-baked mini-language or XML.

It does handle FORTRAN when using the scipy_distutils extensions.

--
Robert Kern
(e-mail address removed)

"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
-- Richard Harter

 

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois?= Pinard]

[George Sakkis]

I would suggest SCons (http://www.scons.org/), a modern
make/automake/autoconf replacement that uses python for its
configuration files instead of yet another cryptic half-baked
mini-language or XML.

Python might not be the most legible way to describe what a Makefile
has to describe, it asks for more syntax that we really need. On the
other hand, it is convenient having Python handy for extending the
capabilities of your description file, that is, having Python has a
provisional, supplementary card, instead the only and mandatory one.

I'm exploring with some pleasure Bram Moolenaar's A-A-P tool (see
http://www.a-a-p.org). This is implemented in Python, but does not
force people into Python syntax for Makefiles. It might be a nicer
compromise. As usual from Bram, documentation is abundant and useful.