On Jun 25, 2010, at 9:11 AM, Janosch Peters wrote: > On 2010-06-25 15:45:37 +0200, Michael Hertling said: > >> On 06/25/2010 03:17 PM, Janosch Peters wrote: >>> On 2010-06-21 07:01:36 +0200, Michael Hertling said: >>>> 8d87d12 >>> What's that? Leet speak? >> No, these are the first seven and sufficiently unambiguous digits of >> the SHA-1 sum of the commit in CMake's Git repository that removes >> the framework related lines from FindPythonLibs.cmake > > Ok. But the python dilemma still remains: > > 1. FindPythonInterp and FindPythonLibs might still produce inconsistent > results (e.g. libs and interpreter of different python versions) > 2. AFAIK you cannot specify a specific python version you which to > include/link > > I think someone on the list suggested to merge both modules into one, which > would help making the results consistent. Is this (or any other solution) on > your todo list?
I suggested the merge, and proposed to add a function to check for the existence of python modules: http://www.cmake.org/pipermail/cmake/2010-June/037468.html On my OS X machine, the headers and libs for different python versions also exist in the more common UNIX places (/usr/include/python2.x, /usr/lib/libpython2.x.dylib, /usr/lib/python2.x/config/libpython2.x.a, and corresponding MacPorts locations). I don’t know of any way you can specify a specific version of a framework, so (at least for python) it seems easier to drop framework support altogether and just use the UNIX paths. -- Mark _______________________________________________ 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