Closed akruis closed 3 years ago
Not sure what you mean, stackless already has sub-directories for platform selection, etc... As long as the files in the include hierarchy reference themselves in a relative manner, there should be no problem. Isn't this just a problem of mounting the sub-module inside an already establieshed include folder, e.g. "include/stakless/stackman", then from stackless code you could do an include "stackless/stackman/include/stackman.h"
This will work if the "stackless" folder can be found in an already existing include path.
My problem was related to packaging (i.e. rpm). If you add an new sub-directory to an include directory, you eventually force people to have to update build and packaging scripts. But my concern is no longer relevant for Stackless Python, because I moved stackman from Include/internal/stackman to Stackless/platf/stackman (https://github.com/stackless-dev/stackless/pull/230/commits/e98117930caacfed1a337af50787064aa08a0eb4).
Okay, I see. I´m happy to try to make things simple, but at the same time, having a hierarchy to separate header files seems kind of necessary. Can packaging tools not add a hierarchy of dependencies? Not familiar with the tools in question, never done any RPM myself.
RPM and Debian packaging tools can do everything. But the most convenient approach is to take the configuration for C-Python and just replace the source archive without any other changes.
If we want to bundle Stackman with Stackless Python, we should move all required includes into a single include directory without any sub-directories.
The Python directory layout is tied info the build system and into scripts used for packaging python. Adding include files is usually not a problem, but adding directories might be a lot more complicated. Currently Stackless does not modify the C-Python include directory layout and I don't want to change this.