Consider a consistent policy towards including pxd-files into the installation #14847
Labels
Build / CI
help wanted
Moderate
Anything that requires some knowledge of conventions and best practices
Comments
|
If we aren't including all pxds, then we should, imo, and should be testing
the packaging to make sure that we have done so.
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Right now some pxd-files are included into the installation, e.g. sklearn.tree._utils.pxd, but some not, e.g. from sklearn.neighbor.
It would be better to have a consistent policy concerning pxd-files. For example right now
sklearn.tree._utils.pxdis available in the installation but of no use - it needs/cimports pxd-files fromsklearn.neighborwhich aren't there.It could be benefitial to have all pxd-files copied to the installation, because then it would became possible to subclass/tweak Cython-cdef-classes, even if it means that some internal API gets exposed. Or at least copy only those pxd-files, which can really be used/cimported from the installation.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: