1.16 Release

[Martin Pool]

2009/6/9 Vincent Ladeuil <v.ladeuil+lp at free.fr>:
>>>>>> "martin" == Martin Pool <mbp at sourcefrog.net> writes:
>
>    martin> 2009/6/9 Vincent Ladeuil <v.ladeuil+lp at free.fr>:
>    >> But, we also talked about versioning these files directly in
>    >> bzr.dev which would address the above problem and make it easier
>    >> to build C extensions without requiring pyrex[1].
>
>    martin> Let's do it, and then make the build just fail if they're not there.
>
> Rhaaa, I forgot to mention the most important point :-(
>
> So, we don't have a strict policy regarding the required pyrex
> version. The pyrex files themselves are not heavily modified so
> the C files shouldn't change a lot either *iff* we stick to one
> pyrex version when committing such changes.
>
> The questions are:
>
> - should we chose the pyrex version as proposed by the
>  Ubuntu-du-jour at the the time of the release ?
>
> - will pqm try to rebuild its own versions or not ?
>
> I know John invested quite some time on the subject so his
> feedback is highly desired :)
>
> But from there I'd be happy to do the related changes if our RM
> can't.

Hm, so maybe for now (ie for 1.16) we can just make sure that both
'make dist' (and the setup.py equivalent) and installing will fail
unless the C files both exist and can be built?


-- 
Martin <http://launchpad.net/~mbp/>