Roumen Petrov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
The old if statement was "flat":
if find_file("ndbm.h", inc_dirs, []) is not None:
<CODE>
elif (self.compiler.find_library_file(lib_dirs, 'gdbm')
and find_file("gdbm/ndbm.h", inc_dirs, []) is not None):
<CODE>
elif db_incs is not None:
<CODE>
else:
miss
If the second case fail, try third and if succeed build dbm with
"berkeley db".
The new if statement contain nested if:
Now the second case is only "self.compiler.find_library_file(lib_dirs,
'gdbm'):" and if succeed (my case) =>
Failed to find the necessary bits to build these modules:
... dbm ...
Note the build system lack headers "gdbm/ndbm.h", "gdbm-ndbm.h".
To restore previous I add copy of code from third case as new case in
nested if:
===============
'dbm', ['dbmmodule.c'],
define_macros=[('HAVE_GDBM_DASH_NDBM_H',None)],
libraries = gdbm_libs ) )
+ elif db_incs is not None:
+ exts.append( Extension('dbm', ['dbmmodule.c'],
+ library_dirs=dblib_dir,
+ runtime_library_dirs=dblib_dir,
+ include_dirs=db_incs,
+ define_macros=[('HAVE_BERKDB_H',None),
+ ('DB_DBM_HSEARCH',None)],
+ libraries=dblibs))
else:
missing.append('dbm')
elif db_incs is not None:
===============
Note that above is not proposed patch as I don't like nested ifs and
code duplicate.
Is possible the checks to be in a new separate function ?
_______________________________________
Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue4483>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
