Re: Patch for python.jam

From: Markus Schöpflin (markus.schoepflin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-11 03:28:22

David Abrahams wrote:

> Markus Schöpflin <markus.schoepflin_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
>>But after trying the documented approach, I think the second reason is 
>>that with the patch the usage is easier and more concise. Compare
>>
>> bjam
>> -sTOOLS=gcc
>> -sPYTHON_ROOT=/net/camos/opt
>> -sPYTHON_INCLUDES="/net/camos/opt/include/python2.3 
>>/net/camos/opt/exec/Linux-i686/include/python2.3"
>> -sPYTHON_VERSION=2.3
>> hello
>>
>>to
>>
>> bjam
>> -sTOOLS=gcc
>> -sPYTHON_ROOT=/net/camos/opt
>> -sPYTHON_EXEC_ROOT=/net/camos/opt/exec/Linux-i686
>> hello
>>
>>What do you think?
> 
> I'm not convinced you can really get away without setting
> PYTHON_VERSION in either case. It's used to identify the Python
> library.

You are right of course. The omission of PYTHON_VERSION is a 
cut-and-paste error in the second example.

But anyway, what I meant was that in the first case I'm specifying 
redundant information in PYTHON_INCLUDES (PYTHON_ROOT, PYTHON_EXEC_ROOT, 
and PYTHON_VERSION) and in the second case I'm not. And I would think it 
more natural to specify ROOT and EXEC_ROOT but to figure out which 
include path I have to use.

Of course these are only my personal preferences. Maybe it really is not 
such an improvement as I'm thinking it is.

Markus