Skip to content

Switch to scikit-build#219

Closed
ghost wants to merge 6 commits into
masterfrom
unknown repository
Closed

Switch to scikit-build#219
ghost wants to merge 6 commits into
masterfrom
unknown repository

Conversation

@ghost

@ghost ghost commented Feb 15, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown

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

@isuruf

isuruf commented Feb 15, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@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

ghost commented Feb 15, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

@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

isuruf commented Feb 15, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Will do tonight

@certik

certik commented Feb 15, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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

@ghost

ghost commented Feb 15, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

How important is cross-compile MinGW support?

@isuruf

isuruf commented Feb 15, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

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

ghost commented Feb 15, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

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

isuruf commented Feb 15, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

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

ghost commented Feb 20, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

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

bjodah commented Feb 20, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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

ghost commented Feb 21, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

cc @isuruf

1 similar comment
@ghost

ghost commented Feb 27, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

cc @isuruf

@certik certik left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

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?

Comment thread setup.py
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
Copy Markdown
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
Copy Markdown
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).

Comment thread setup.py

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

Copy link
Copy Markdown
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

certik commented Dec 26, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@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

isuruf commented Dec 27, 2018

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

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.

@isuruf

isuruf commented Oct 11, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Moved to scikit-build-core in #523

@isuruf isuruf closed this Oct 11, 2025
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.

5 participants