Open lydia-duncan opened 7 years ago
I am assuming this is now the place to discuss the issue of the copying of the chapel libraries?
(Sorry I have been absent, I shall restart efforts on the Python 3 stuff shortly.)
I guess the first question I had ages ago was "Why do the files have to be copied? Why is it not possible to use environment variables to achieve the access to the built libraries?" I believe I then used symbolic links instead of copying. Building and installing PyChapel, requires (or required) a rebuild of Chapel so an update to the "copied" files anyway.
I don't know the answer, but I agree with you that we shouldn't have to copy the files. I would imagine it was more chosen as one way to solve the problem of "Where is my Chapel install?" rather than because it was viewed as the only way to find the Chapel install. Updating the issue description to include that as an action item
Or, maybe,... a "deployed" PyChapel with the copied files makes a directory that can be tarred or zipped up and it makes a complete distribution. I had previously been thinking only in terms of development. Putting on a packager/DevOps mindset it could be this is the first stage of making a release of a self-contained thing with only libc as a dependency.
I just created a related ticket, not quite a duplicate: https://github.com/chapel-lang/pychapel/issues/75
Seen in #61, there are a couple of problems with the current installation strategy.
python setup.py install
andpip install pyChapel
steps followed to install normal Python modules. Is there a way to modify setup.py so that it performs this installation automatically, without the user needing to perform this action themselves?Other, related issues: