The current git code installs into site-packages. David Hall I think figured it out a month or two ago.
I have thought about using Python's package managers before, but the user's expectations will be difficult to meet. Which version of Open Babel is present? Was Open Babel compiled with Eigen? With XML? If they used their distribution's package manager, did they install the development libraries and include files? These are not impossible problems to solve, but it's hard to justify the amount of work involved when currently -DPYTHON_BINDINGS=ON will do the work for most people. - Noel On 28 December 2013 01:35, Geoffrey Hutchison <geoff.hutchi...@gmail.com> wrote: > What is everyones opinion of fixing setup.py to be standalone and work with > pypi and pip? I still think this would be the best path forward. > > > This would be great, see below. > >> a. Compiling for Python should not require Cmake edits, especially with >> the excellent installers that are now available. > > > I think everyone agrees here. > >> b. There are some non-intuitive issues with compiling boost libraries (a >> specific flag is needed) before the python bindings will compile. > > > Unless you have an old compiler, boost should not be needed (for > shared_ptr). What compiler are you using? > >> c. openbabel.py pybel.py and _openbabel.so are put into the system library >> directory instead of into the python sitepackages directory. This is a >> pretty bad situation actually, because it means you have to (1) recognize >> this and (2) find them and (3) move them to an appropriate location. Reading >> online, it seems that this is a cmake problem. It only knows how to install >> things in one place. > > > > I agree 110%. I *thought* a patch had been committed that fixed this. > Personally, I think the default should be to install into the site packages, > perhaps with a CMake flag for Linux packagers if it needs to go into the > system library paths at all. > >> Basically, setup.py is not configured to work as a standalone package >> installer. It is probably fixable, and would greatly easy the installation. >> What do you guys think? > > > As I said, I thought there was a patch which had CMake call python distutils > to get the site packages directory. But certainly as a fallback, setup.py > should work. > > Thanks, > -Geoff > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT > organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance > affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your > Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics > Pro! > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > OpenBabel-discuss mailing list > OpenBabel-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openbabel-discuss > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ OpenBabel-discuss mailing list OpenBabel-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openbabel-discuss
