Subject: Re: Cygwin Python 2.1, Numeric package, exporting init<module> methods
From: "Mark Hadfield" <[email-masked]>
To: "Jason Tishler" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Norman Vine" <[email-masked]>, "Robert Yodlowski" <[email-masked]>, "Cygwin Mailing List" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 09:42:19 +1200

From: "Jason Tishler" <[email-masked]>
> IMO, submitting a patch to the Numpy maintainers using the DL_EXPORT
> macro approach is the way to go.  This is the approach that I used
> successfully for numerous standard Python modules.  See the following
> for Tim Peters assessment of this approach:
>
>     http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2001-February/013292.html

If this is to be the "standard" approach, then that's fine. I guess it
should be documented in "Extending Python"?

The alternative is changing the compilation & linking process to generate &
use .def files. Norman Vine reported to me yesterday that he could build
Numpy without the DL_EXPORT macros. When we compared notes it turned out
that he was using a modified version of distutils. Basically Norman's
approach is to build with the "cygwin" compiler option:

    python setup.py --compiler=cygwin

and the distutils patch is attached below my sig. I think it's fairly
self-explanatory.

> Why don't you try the Numpy maintainers and see what they have to say?
> Since they already support a Win32 port, I can't imagine much resistance
> on their part.

I'd be glad to do that but first I would like a ruling from the
Cygwin-Python gods about which of these approaches is the
one-true-Pythonic-way.

---
Mark Hadfield
[email-masked]  http://katipo.niwa.cri.nz/~hadfield
National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple