From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27328 invoked by alias); 5 May 2008 14:46:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 27315 invoked by uid 22791); 5 May 2008 14:46:32 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 05 May 2008 14:46:10 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3519E980F7; Mon, 5 May 2008 14:46:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 171F498060; Mon, 5 May 2008 14:46:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Jt1x8-000074-T4; Mon, 05 May 2008 10:46:06 -0400 Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 16:50:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Thiago Jung Bauermann Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC][patch 1/9] initial Python support Message-ID: <20080505144606.GA32577@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Thiago Jung Bauermann , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20080429155212.444237503@br.ibm.com> <20080429155304.288626880@br.ibm.com> <1209963038.25743.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080505131026.GB27076@caradoc.them.org> <1209996380.25743.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1209996380.25743.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-05/txt/msg00208.txt.bz2 On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 11:06:20AM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: > > Maybe we just want > > --with-python, --without-python, and --with-python=/path. > > The last one isn't implemented by the AC_ARG_WITH option, IIUC. I'd have > to explicitly implement it. Right. > Would it work work just like --with-libpython2.5-prefix? Why would > it be less problematic and less complicated? Take a look at config/lib-link.m4 and config/lib-prefix.m4. Then compare to --with-mpfr and --with-mpfr-lib in the top level configure.ac. Notice that they're about a hundredth of the size. The top level also chose to use multiple options so maybe that's wise after all. But anyway that lets us have --with-python-lib and --with-python-include, avoiding the version-specific options. The versions in config handle all sorts of complicated extra scenarios. But they're pretty rare and there's others that aren't handled. One which adds -L${withval}/lib and -I${withval}/include works 99% of the time, and the user can fiddle CFLAGS/LDFLAGS for the other cases. I may rip out the existing uses, though we'll have to keep the long option names for compatibility. > That's how I made it. Thanks! -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery