On Fri, 15 Sep 2017, Fred Wright via devel wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Hal Murray wrote:
>
> > > The basic problem is that python2.7-config --ldflags includes
> > > "-lpython2.7"
> > > but no "-L" to say where to find it. On most platforms, a suitable "-L"
> > > is
> > > included.
> >
> > I d
On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Hal Murray wrote:
> > The basic problem is that python2.7-config --ldflags includes "-lpython2.7"
> > but no "-L" to say where to find it. On most platforms, a suitable "-L" is
> > included.
>
> I don't know anything about that area, but your "most platforms" seems
> optimis
> The basic problem is that python2.7-config --ldflags includes "-lpython2.7"
> but no "-L" to say where to find it. On most platforms, a suitable "-L" is
> included.
I don't know anything about that area, but your "most platforms" seems
optimistic.
NetBSD 7.1 (GENERIC.201703111743Z)
-bash-4.
On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Hal Murray via devel wrote:
> > All the fuss over long doubles has distracted folks from a more legitimate
> > issue with NetBSD 6.1.5, which is that python-config returns a nonworking
> > build setup for the C extension. But a workaround should be possible, and
> > it's onl
Yo Hal!
On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:13:43 -0700
Hal Murray via devel wrote:
> > All the fuss over long doubles has distracted folks from a more
> > legitimate issue with NetBSD 6.1.5, which is that python-config
> > returns a nonworking build setup for the C extension. But a
> > workaround should be
> All the fuss over long doubles has distracted folks from a more legitimate
> issue with NetBSD 6.1.5, which is that python-config returns a nonworking
> build setup for the C extension. But a workaround should be possible, and
> it's only in the build procedure, not the code.
Could you please
