Re: [RFA/python:1/2] Add support for --with-pythondir.

[Doug Evans <dje@google.com>]

On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> wrote:
> I wasn't personally thinking about .so modules for GDB. Do you have
> any example in mind where it would be more useful for a user to use
> a .so rather than a .py?

No example.  I just want us to have thought about it (since now seems
like the right time).
And I don't have a strong opinion on any particular solution.
I do think that we should allow for the possibility of having gdb
python modules implemented as .so's.

>> Also, do we want to name this --with-gdb-pythondir? [and do we want to
>> rename --with-python to --with-gdb-python?]
>
> I think that --with-python is a fine name, although now that I think
> of it, it might have been more consistent to name it with-python-prefix.
> I don't think that we should name it with a "gdb" in it, because this
> is not GDB's python library, but rather the prefix where python is
> installed.

For reference sake, --with-python-prefix is a worse name now.
Setting aside --with-python=yes, the preferred parameter is the name
or path of the python binary.  We fetch the needed parameters via
distutils of that binary. [Setting aside cross-compilation.]