Re: cctbx debian package
Le 15/07/2012 10:27, PICCA Frédéric-Emmanuel a écrit :
>
> Yes it would be better to build using the scons provided by Debian. At the end of the process, cctbx should be repackage and removing scons is on the list :)
OK, the problem was that the upstream build system insists on running
with the same python version that was configured. So when just calling
the system scons command, which uses the system default python, I can't
build both versions.
But I just thought of an easy way to work around this: I'll add
/usr/lib/scons to the PYTHONPATH and directly call SCons.Script.main()
with the python version I need.
> Can you provide more information about this runtime problem ?
Nothing really severe, just 2 small things:
1) contrary to Radi's setup.py, mine installs packages directly into the
main python path. That means you would import scitbx with "import
scitbx", not "import cctbx.scitbx". I think it is better because both
the upstream python files and user scripts use the first idiom. However,
I was hesitating about boost_adaptbx: is it acceptable to install it as
just "boost" in the main namespace?
2) upstream installs the .so extensions into the main python path, but
almost all of them are only imported from one place inside the packages.
So I moved them there. There is however one exception:
scitbx_array_family_flex_ext.so gets imported from several places, so I
need to either keep it global, or write an import stub.
Cheers,
Baptiste
Reply to: