[PATCH 3/5] build: optionally build python-cffi bindings

[Tomi Ollila]

On Sun, Nov 03 2019, David Bremner wrote:

> Put the build product (and tests) in a well known location so that we
> can find them e.g. from the tests.
> ---
>  Makefile.local          | 2 +-
>  bindings/Makefile.local | 9 +++++++++
>  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Makefile.local b/Makefile.local
> index 3c6dacbc..7c12612d 100644
> --- a/Makefile.local
> +++ b/Makefile.local
> @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
>  # -*- makefile -*-
>  
>  .PHONY: all
> -all: notmuch notmuch-shared build-man build-info ruby-bindings
> +all: notmuch notmuch-shared build-man build-info ruby-bindings python-cffi-bindings
>  ifeq ($(MAKECMDGOALS),)
>  ifeq ($(shell cat .first-build-message 2>/dev/null),)
>  	@NOTMUCH_FIRST_BUILD=1 $(MAKE) --no-print-directory all
> diff --git a/bindings/Makefile.local b/bindings/Makefile.local
> index 18f95835..b8e18c92 100644
> --- a/bindings/Makefile.local
> +++ b/bindings/Makefile.local
> @@ -13,6 +13,13 @@ ifeq ($(HAVE_RUBY_DEV),1)
>  	$(MAKE) -C $(dir)/ruby
>  endif
>  
> +python-cffi-bindings: lib/$(LINKER_NAME)
> +ifeq ($(HAVE_PYTHON_CFFI),1)
> +	cd $(dir)/python-cffi && \

how bad does out-of-tree build break with this -- do we need to do
the same as with ruby bindings (copy sources -- do we still do so)? or does
python provide better alternative..?

> +		${PYTHON} setup.py build --build-lib build/stage && \
> +		mkdir -p build/stage/tests && cp tests/*.py build/stage/tests
> +endif
> +
>  CLEAN += $(patsubst %,$(dir)/ruby/%, \
>  	.RUBYARCHDIR.time \
>  	Makefile database.o directory.o filenames.o\
> @@ -20,3 +27,5 @@ CLEAN += $(patsubst %,$(dir)/ruby/%, \
>  	status.o tags.o thread.o threads.o)
>  
>  CLEAN += bindings/ruby/.vendorarchdir.time
> +
> +CLEAN += bindings/python-cffi/build
> -- 
> 2.24.0.rc1
>
> _______________________________________________
> notmuch mailing list
> notmuch at notmuchmail.org
> https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch