On Wed, Oct 18, 2017, 4:11 AM Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_apache.org> wrote:
> Troy Curtis Jr wrote:
> >>> 2. Do you want to pick up 'py3c' as a new dep, or implement the
> >>> handful of necessary wrappers?
> >>
> >> I don't know the swig-py bindings well enough to answer that. I guess
> >> it depends on how much a "handful" would be. [...]
> >
> > I'll default to not pulling it in, I don't think it is really needed.
> > But I try to default to resisting the "Not Invented Here" tendency.
> > However, adding a new dep, especially for so little gain, probably
> > doesn't make sense IMHO. The converse is that while some of the calls
> > might not be currently used, later additions might [...]
>
> My two cents, from the sidelines: use py3c's solutions; I don't mind how.
>
> I second your "resist NIH" attitude. I have little experience of Swig
> and none of py3c, but assuming py3c is good I would like us to default
> to using py3c solutions, so that our results are more likely to be easy
> to integrate with other code and more likely to be familiar to another
> Python programmer, use techniques known to have been tested in other
> projects, and so on.
>
> How you get the py3c definitions into Subversion -- copying just the
> definitions we currently will use, or the whole set of headers, or even
> picking up a system-installed version -- I don't mind. Do what seems
> best to you.
>
> Hopefully that's more or less what you were thinking anyway; I just
> wasn't quite clear what you meant by "adding a new dep... probably
> doesn't make sense".
>
> - Julian
>
You weren't clear because I kept waffling back and forth about which
direction I think it should go. Sorry for the indecision :)
It is a header only library so it is actually only a build time dep, and
appears to be readily available in various Linux distro repositories. I'll
take a look at how you are handling deps and start my efforts there.
Troy
>
Received on 2017-10-18 12:59:37 CEST