Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Switch to scikit-build #219

Open
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Switch to scikit-build #219

wants to merge 6 commits into from

Conversation

ghost
Copy link

@ghost ghost commented Feb 15, 2018

Scikit-build is an improved build system generator that automatically prefers the ninja build system.

@isuruf
Copy link
Member

isuruf commented Feb 15, 2018

@xoviat, thanks for doing this. I wanted to check and fix scikit-build regarding #144 (comment) but I haven't had time to look at it. Do you know if they have been resolved?

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Feb 15, 2018

@isuruf Would you mind filing issues on the scikit-build repository? If the issue is not filed, it is no surprise that nothing is done.

@isuruf
Copy link
Member

isuruf commented Feb 15, 2018

Will do tonight

@certik
Copy link
Contributor

certik commented Feb 15, 2018

@xoviat thanks for working on this. I am all for offloading the heavy lifting to scikit-build.

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Feb 15, 2018

How important is cross-compile MinGW support?

@isuruf
Copy link
Member

isuruf commented Feb 15, 2018

While the binaries provided in releases are python 3.5+ only, we do build and test with MinGW and MSVC 2015 for python 2.7 support. By 2020, we'll drop 2.7 support, but until then, I'd like to keep 2.7 support if that's not too much trouble.

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Feb 15, 2018

To be clear, I'm not discussing dropping Python 2.7 support. I'm discussing dropping support for MinGW and Python 3.5+ on windows.

@isuruf
Copy link
Member

isuruf commented Feb 15, 2018

I'm discussing dropping support for MinGW and Python 3.5+ on windows.

That's okay

@ghost ghost closed this Feb 16, 2018
@ghost ghost reopened this Feb 16, 2018
@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Feb 20, 2018

I don't know what the cause of the import failure that occurs on Travis-CI is. The files seem to be installed to their correct locations.

@bjodah
Copy link
Contributor

bjodah commented Feb 20, 2018

Shot in the dark (not sure at all it applies here): at least with pytest (don't use nosetests much myself) I've had strange problems unless I specified zip_safe=False.

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Feb 21, 2018

cc @isuruf

1 similar comment
@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Feb 27, 2018

cc @isuruf

Copy link
Contributor

@certik certik left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this greatly simplifies the setup. Thank you for the PR. @isuruf would you please mind reviewing it?

print('scikit-build is required to build from source.', file=sys.stderr)
print('Please run:', file=sys.stderr)
print('', file=sys.stderr)
print(' python -m pip install scikit-build')
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Shouldn't the command just be pip install scikit-build?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Both ways work but the advantage of python -m pip ... is that it's easier to tell which version of Python the package is being installed in (this SO thread discusses it some more). The Python 3 documentation recommends this way of invoking pip (also see this Python issue that implemented the change in the docs).


if sys.version_info < (3, 0):
windows._get_msvc_compiler_env = lambda _ : {}
# END
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe this can be incorporated into scikit-build itself?

@certik
Copy link
Contributor

certik commented Dec 26, 2018

@isuruf I still think this is a good idea in general to switch to scikit-build, as it should simplify the build system that we have to maintain. What do you think?

@isuruf
Copy link
Member

isuruf commented Dec 27, 2018

Yes, I'm in favor of using scikit-build too. This PR has to be improved before merging though. Removing the --symengine-dir option to specify symengine C++ build directory limits my development workflow.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants