<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hi Marcin,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I will indeed just wrap up our beloved configure and build steps within setup.py. My plan is to install the following hierarchy:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><font face="Menlo" class="">site-packages</font></div><div class=""><font face="Menlo" class="">|—— cctbx_distro</font></div><div class=""><font face="Menlo" class="">| |—— cctbx_build</font></div><div class=""><font face="Menlo" class="">| |—— cctbx_project</font></div><div class=""><font face="Menlo" class="">|—— cctbx.pth</font></div><div class=""><font face="Menlo" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div class="">where cctbx.pth would contain</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><font face="Menlo" class="">cctbx_distro/cctbx_build/lib</font></div><div class=""><font face="Menlo" class="">cctbx_project/boost_adaptbx</font></div><div class=""><font face="Menlo" class="">cctbx_project/libtbx/pythonpath</font></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Finally, I would add to site-packages/sitecustomize the following:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">import os; os.environ[‘LIBTBX_BUILD’] = path/to/site-packages</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I just need to refresh my mind about how to get at those paths!</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""></div><div class=""><div class="">We considered adding setup.py here, but I thought it's not worth the<br class="">effort and it won't work well anyway.<br class="">I'd like to be proved wrong. My thinking was that<br class="">- redoing everything without scons is a lot of effort for little<br class="">benefit, and it would quickly get out-of-sync with the main build<br class="">system if it's not actively maintained<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Total agreement here.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">- wrapping cctbx/scons build system won't work well because distutils<br class="">options won't map well to the scons options. And additional layer of<br class="">indirection would be confusing. I mean distutils-like system that<br class="">doesn't really work like distutils could be more frustrating than<br class="">having to explicitly use cctbx build commands. But maybe I'm wrong<br class="">here.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div><div class="">I do not plan to support the wealth of setuptools command-line options, like building in place, or creating those fancy development installation. But 99% of the time people are just interested in</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">% python setup.py install</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">so I think there is a case for providing that. That would be the first milestone. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The second milestone would be to make sure the cctbx can then be installed with easy_install or pip, which may require a bit more support for the arcanes of setuptools. I don’t think it will be inordinately difficult.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Best wishes,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Luc</div><div class=""> </div></body></html>