Re: [jamboost] Re: MacOS X Tiger support for BBv2?

From: Pedro Ferreira (pedro.ferreira_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-07 04:07:24

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Craig Rodrigues" <rodrigc_at_[hidden]>
To: <jamboost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 1:10 AM
Subject: Re: [jamboost] Re: MacOS X Tiger support for BBv2?

> On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 10:32:11AM +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> This is absolutely no needed. The users must built bjam with Python 
>> support
>> enabled and directly use os.popen ;-)
>>
>> If the attached two files are placed into 'examples/hello', you can add 
>> this
>> to Jamroot:
>>
>> import capture ;
>> ECHO [ capture.output "ls" ] ;
>>
>> You'd need up-to-date bjam for this to work -- I've just fixed a minor 
>> bug
>> affecting Python integration. To enable Python support, look at 
>> HAVE_PYTHON
>> in jam_src/build.jam. Tested on Linix.
>
>
>
> Regarding Python and bjam, is the idea that Python is
> an optional component of bjam, or required?
> Right now, I just use the "build.sh" script on Unix to build
> bjam, and start using it right away.
>
> popen() functionality would be very useful to have in
> the core of bjam that is always there, regardless if
> you compile it with Python or not.

Anyone has an idea of how problematic would it be to always enable Python?
I ask this because on the one hand, since Volodya added that capability, I 
became addicted to it and do all sorts of things with Python in Jamfiles; on 
the other hand, popen is already (well) implemented in Python, so I think 
the effort of doing it in bjam would most probably be larger that to make 
sure bjam + Python is portable.

My 2 cents,

Pedro