Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
MAINT Clean-up more unused Makefile targets #29296
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
MAINT Clean-up more unused Makefile targets #29296
Changes from all commits
86e56eb
5631512
b00e0cd
4b246f8
a2c3e40
2b8c59b
988f0eb
24e4c8b
ecadb07
6e48562
c51fb25
f082a64
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
would be nice to replace this
in
target with what we do now though. As in, still be able to domake in
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
it would be a bit weird that
in
is not the same asinplace
anymore though ... more generally see #29296 (comment)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would rather rename this to
dev-setuptools
for consistency.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah we could do this, although
dev-setuptools
would be different todev-meson
in the sense that you needmake dev-setuptools
each time you change a Cython file.Keeping
make inplace-setuptools
you could argue that if some people are still usingmake in
, they can stillmake in<TAB>
so slightly less disruptive. But the number of these people is beween 0 and 1 apparently so 🤷.I am hoping to look at #29012 again so in the medium term it does not matter that much, so I am fine either way ...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm also fine either way, we should not bother too much since we expect to have less and less people installing using setuptools.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
+1 for
dev-setuptools
. Otherwise it's too confusing.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
dev-setuptools it is, I also reordered the targets in rough order of importance