Ah thanks, I didn't know that byte code is incompatible between Python releases. That's definitely a pitfall ;-). I agree that, in that case, it's better to let the installer handle byte compilation. So, in short, I can do with the existing FindPython* scripts, I guess?
Thanks for your prompt reply. Best regards, Marcel Loose. On Wed, 2009-08-19 at 10:02 +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote: > Zitat von Marcel Loose <lo...@astron.nl>: > > Would it be worthwhile to add Python as a valid language to the > > project() method? Or is it better to use the currently available > > FindPython-like scripts. > > > > My reason for asking is that oftentimes you'd like to byte-compile > > Python source and install these byte-compiled files along with the > > Python sources. If Python were a fully supported programming language, > > then you could write the CMakeLists.txt files more or less the same way > > as for other languages (e.g., like Java). > > > > It's just a thought, and maybe I'm overlooking all kinds of potential > > pitfalls. > > Citing from http://effbot.org/zone/python-compile.htm: > Python?s byte code is portable between platforms, but not necessarily > between Python releases. > > Unless your python module is for only one specific version or you know > the python interpreter version on all installation targets, you better > leave it up to the installer to compile the module (the page shows > trivial code in python to do this). > > Something different would be to get complete application binaries. > However, that somehow defeats one purpose of using Python. > > HS > > _______________________________________________ Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake