Skip to content
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

[Python] Improve the pyarrow build system #36411

Open
jorisvandenbossche opened this issue Jun 30, 2023 · 7 comments
Open

[Python] Improve the pyarrow build system #36411

jorisvandenbossche opened this issue Jun 30, 2023 · 7 comments

Comments

@jorisvandenbossche
Copy link
Member

The current build system of pyarrow consists of using setuptools with a custom setup.py that calls cmake to do the actual build. While this works, there are nowadays newer python "build backends" that we could benefit from to make this easier to maintain and use.
Specifically build backends that are meant to work with CMake projects, such as scikit-build, might be worth exploring.

@raulcd
Copy link
Member

raulcd commented Jun 30, 2023

Thanks @jorisvandenbossche !

@h-vetinari
Copy link
Contributor

Specifically build backends that are meant to work with CMake projects, such as scikit-build, might be worth exploring.

Scipy has pioneered meson as the backend (in the wider python ecosystem at least), which is now being used by numpy & pandas as well, and is being picked up by more and more projects. For a regular python project it's probably a better choice than CMake-based builds (the syntax is already nice and pythonic too), though if you have substantial CMake infrastructure then that integrates more easily with scikit-build.

@jorisvandenbossche
Copy link
Member Author

though if you have substantial CMake infrastructure then that integrates more easily with scikit-build.

We do have that, yes: https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/main/python/CMakeLists.txt

@h-vetinari
Copy link
Contributor

I'm aware, I've been building arrow for a while now. ;-)
It was more a rhetorical statement - depends a bit on what one considers "substantial" too. :)

@jorisvandenbossche
Copy link
Member Author

Also relevant issue: #36410

@jorisvandenbossche
Copy link
Member Author

Major wish-list item: proper incremental / cached cython builds.

@vyasr
Copy link
Contributor

vyasr commented Mar 8, 2024

I'll note that if scikit-build is still of interest, the modern solution here would be to use scikit-build-core

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants