Dulwich C extensions and stand-alone Windows installation of bzr

[Jelmer Vernooij]

On 09/04/2011 06:20 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2011 17:59:35 +0200
>> From: Jelmer Vernooij<jelmer at samba.org>
>>
>> On 09/04/2011 05:41 PM, Martin (gzlist) wrote:
>>> On 04/09/2011, Eli Zaretskii<eliz at gnu.org>   wrote:
>>>> Thanks.  But how do I produce the *.pyd files?  There are none in the
>>>> dulwich tarball.
>>> This works* for me:
>>>
>>>       bzr branch lp:dulwich
>>>       cd dulwich
>>>       setup.py install_lib -d \path\to\site-packages
>>>
>>> You'll need the right version of msvc for your python version as per
>>> usual when dealing with python extensions that need a C compiler.
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>>
>>> *Actually, it doesn't quite, but does when I use a Python built using
>>> vc9 which supplies strnlen unlike the older C runtime.
>> This requires a python interpreter which Eli doesn't have available
> Not only that, the fact that I need MSVC is in itself a problem: it's
> a proprietary tool.  I use MinGW GCC.  (I'm surprised MSVC is used to
> build binaries of a GNU project.)
>
> It would be swell if someone could make these *.pyd available
> somewhere.
>
> In the long run, I think they need either to come with dulwich or be
> included in the stand-alone installer.
I don't think bundling them with Dulwich is a good idea, that way people 
who want to bzr-git still have to muck about trying to install 
individual libraries and plugins.

It would be ideal if dulwich/bzr-git could be included in the windows 
installer, but I'm not sure how much extra maintainance burden that adds 
to whoever does the installers.

Cheers,

Jelmer