Speaking of the existing FindPython* scripts they do not support v3.0 yet. Is there a need to maintain support for picking 2.x if two versions of python are installed?<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 4:15 AM, Marcel Loose <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:loose@astron.nl">loose@astron.nl</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Ah thanks,<br>
<br>
I didn't know that byte code is incompatible between Python releases.<br>
That's definitely a pitfall ;-). I agree that, in that case, it's better<br>
to let the installer handle byte compilation. So, in short, I can do<br>
with the existing FindPython* scripts, I guess?<br>
<br>
Thanks for your prompt reply.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<font color="#888888">Marcel Loose.<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
On Wed, 2009-08-19 at 10:02 +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote:<br>
> Zitat von Marcel Loose <<a href="mailto:loose@astron.nl">loose@astron.nl</a>>:<br>
> > Would it be worthwhile to add Python as a valid language to the<br>
> > project() method? Or is it better to use the currently available<br>
> > FindPython-like scripts.<br>
> ><br>
> > My reason for asking is that oftentimes you'd like to byte-compile<br>
> > Python source and install these byte-compiled files along with the<br>
> > Python sources. If Python were a fully supported programming language,<br>
> > then you could write the CMakeLists.txt files more or less the same way<br>
> > as for other languages (e.g., like Java).<br>
> ><br>
> > It's just a thought, and maybe I'm overlooking all kinds of potential<br>
> > pitfalls.<br>
><br>
> Citing from <a href="http://effbot.org/zone/python-compile.htm" target="_blank">http://effbot.org/zone/python-compile.htm</a>:<br>
> Python?s byte code is portable between platforms, but not necessarily<br>
> between Python releases.<br>
><br>
> Unless your python module is for only one specific version or you know<br>
> the python interpreter version on all installation targets, you better<br>
> leave it up to the installer to compile the module (the page shows<br>
> trivial code in python to do this).<br>
><br>
> Something different would be to get complete application binaries.<br>
> However, that somehow defeats one purpose of using Python.<br>
><br>
> HS<br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Powered by <a href="http://www.kitware.com" target="_blank">www.kitware.com</a><br>
<br>
Visit other Kitware open-source projects at <a href="http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html" target="_blank">http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html</a><br>
<br>
Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: <a href="http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ" target="_blank">http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ</a><br>
<br>
Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:<br>
<a href="http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake" target="_blank">http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Philip Lowman<br>