[PATCH] python: Remove -builtin flag for SWIG bindings.
Justus Winter
justus at g10code.com
Wed Dec 7 15:32:52 CET 2016
Tobias Mueller <muelli at cryptobitch.de> writes:
> * lang/python/setup.py.in: changed the swig call
Please use whole sentences when describing a change. Start with a
capital letter and end in a full stop.
> --
>
> The motivation is to be able to program __repr__
> functions more easily, i.e. in Python rather than C.
Ok.
> The -builtin flag prevents that, though, because Python code
> will not be compiled.
I don't quite understand. Python being compiled sounds at best
ambiguous.
Can you please provide an example of what this change will allow us to
do?
> The -py3 flag prevents the SWIG bindings to run under python2
> when generated without the -builtin flag, because the py3 flag
> generates python3 code which is incompatible with python2.
>
> So we conditionally generate SWIG bindings with -py3.
Indeed. That sounds like a good idea in general, independent from the
'-builtin' issue. Would you be so kind to send a standalone patch?
(This is in general a good idea, because it makes discussing changes,
reasoning about changes, and partial application of patch series much
easier, and git bisect more powerful.)
> Signed-off-by: Tobias Mueller <muelli at cryptobitch.de>
> ---
> lang/python/setup.py.in | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lang/python/setup.py.in b/lang/python/setup.py.in
> index 9669c28..5b5d5be 100755
> --- a/lang/python/setup.py.in
> +++ b/lang/python/setup.py.in
> @@ -152,9 +152,10 @@ class BuildExtFirstHack(build):
> self.run_command('build_ext')
> build.run(self)
>
> +py3 = [] if sys.version_info.major < 3 else ['-py3']
> swige = Extension("gpg._gpgme", ["gpgme.i", "helpers.c"],
> - swig_opts = ['-py3', '-builtin', '-threads',
> - '-outdir', 'gpg'] + extra_swig_opts,
> + swig_opts = ['-threads',
> + '-outdir', 'gpg'] + py3 + extra_swig_opts,
This basically reverts 856bcfe2934237011984fab0bc69800a7c25c34b. Silly
past-me did not write his reasons for doing that change in the
changelog, but I guess I merely wanted to reduce the amount of wrapping
being done here. But I'm not opposed to reverting this if it has the
benefits you mentioned.
However, in that commit I also had to adapt another piece of code, and
you didn't revert that chunk. Could you please investigate this?
Thanks,
Justus
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20161207/24701ae1/attachment.sig>
More information about the Gnupg-devel
mailing list