Building superpackage with Python

Currently, OB and Avogadro use the same variable ENABLE_PYTHON. Is it possible to build Avogadro with Python and don’t build Python binding of OB without significant changes in build systems?


Regards,
Konstantin

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Konstantin Tokarev annulen@yandex.ru wrote:

Currently, OB and Avogadro use the same variable ENABLE_PYTHON. Is it possible to build Avogadro with Python and don’t build Python binding of OB without significant changes in build systems?

You don’t need the OB python bindings for compiling Avogadro. The is a
minimal amount of code allowing you to get an OBMol from an Avogadro
Molecule but that code doesn’t require OB python bindings at compile
time.


Regards,
Konstantin



Avogadro-devel mailing list
Avogadro-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/avogadro-devel

21.04.10, 19:58, “Tim Vandermeersch” tim.vandermeersch@gmail.com:

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:

Currently, OB and Avogadro use the same variable ENABLE_PYTHON. Is it possible to build Avogadro with Python and don’t build Python binding of OB without significant changes in build systems?

You don’t need the OB python bindings for compiling Avogadro.

I know, but can’t set ENABLE_PYTHON=OFF for OB and ENABLE_PYTHON=ON for Avogadro in superpackage since it’s one variable
Need and idea what to change in CMakeLists.txt without total changing of variable names

The is a
minimal amount of code allowing you to get an OBMol from an Avogadro
Molecule but that code doesn’t require OB python bindings at compile
time.


Regards,
Konstantin



Avogadro-devel mailing list
Avogadro-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/avogadro-devel


Regards,
Konstantin

Яндекс.Почта. Письма есть. Спама - нет. http://mail.yandex.ru/nospam/sign

21.04.10, 19:58, “Tim Vandermeersch” tim.vandermeersch@gmail.com:

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:

Currently, OB and Avogadro use the same variable ENABLE_PYTHON. Is it possible to build Avogadro with Python and don’t build Python binding of OB without significant changes in build systems?

You don’t need the OB python bindings for compiling Avogadro. The is a
minimal amount of code allowing you to get an OBMol from an Avogadro
Molecule but that code doesn’t require OB python bindings at compile
time.

I’d gladly built OB with Python, but it doesn’t compile with 2.6.5, and 2.4 doesn’t work for Avo.


Regards,
Konstantin



Avogadro-devel mailing list
Avogadro-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/avogadro-devel


Regards,
Konstantin

Яндекс.Почта. Письма есть. Спама - нет. http://mail.yandex.ru/nospam/sign

2010/4/21 Konstantin Tokarev annulen@yandex.ru:

21.04.10, 19:58, “Tim Vandermeersch” tim.vandermeersch@gmail.com:

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:

Currently, OB and Avogadro use the same variable ENABLE_PYTHON. Is it possible to build Avogadro with Python and don’t build Python binding of OB without significant changes in build systems?

You don’t need the OB python bindings for compiling Avogadro. The is a
minimal amount of code allowing you to get an OBMol from an Avogadro
Molecule but that code doesn’t require OB python bindings at compile
time.

I’d gladly built OB with Python, but it doesn’t compile with 2.6.5, and 2.4 doesn’t work for Avo.

I see, not sure what the best solution is… We could rename one to
AVO_ENABLE_PYTHON…


Regards,
Konstantin



Avogadro-devel mailing list
Avogadro-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/avogadro-devel


Regards,
Konstantin

Яндекс.Почта. Письма есть. Спама - нет. http://mail.yandex.ru/nospam/sign

21.04.10, 20:09, “Tim Vandermeersch” tim.vandermeersch@gmail.com:

2010/4/21 Konstantin Tokarev :

21.04.10, 19:58, “Tim Vandermeersch” :

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:

Currently, OB and Avogadro use the same variable ENABLE_PYTHON. Is it possible to build Avogadro with Python and don’t build Python binding of OB without significant changes in build systems?

You don’t need the OB python bindings for compiling Avogadro. The is a
minimal amount of code allowing you to get an OBMol from an Avogadro
Molecule but that code doesn’t require OB python bindings at compile
time.

I’d gladly built OB with Python, but it doesn’t compile with 2.6.5, and 2.4 doesn’t work for Avo.

I see, not sure what the best solution is… We could rename one to
AVO_ENABLE_PYTHON…

It’s not a good solution - ENABLE_PYTHON is used in very many places, both CMake files and #defines in sources


Regards,
Konstantin



Avogadro-devel mailing list
Avogadro-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/avogadro-devel


Regards,
Konstantin

Яндекс.Почта. Письма есть. Спама - нет. http://mail.yandex.ru/nospam/sign


Regards,
Konstantin

Здесь спама нет http://mail.yandex.ru/nospam/sign

22.04.10, 18:00, “Konstantin Tokarev” annulen@yandex.ru:

21.04.10, 20:09, “Tim Vandermeersch” :

2010/4/21 Konstantin Tokarev :

21.04.10, 19:58, “Tim Vandermeersch” :

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:

Currently, OB and Avogadro use the same variable ENABLE_PYTHON. Is it possible to build Avogadro with Python and don’t build Python binding of OB without significant changes in build systems?

You don’t need the OB python bindings for compiling Avogadro. The is a
minimal amount of code allowing you to get an OBMol from an Avogadro
Molecule but that code doesn’t require OB python bindings at compile
time.

I’d gladly built OB with Python, but it doesn’t compile with 2.6.5, and 2.4 doesn’t work for Avo.

I see, not sure what the best solution is… We could rename one to
AVO_ENABLE_PYTHON…

It’s not a good solution - ENABLE_PYTHON is used in very many places, both CMake files and #defines in sources

But fortunately it’s almost unused in OB! I’ve rename it to OB_ENABLE_PYTHON, is it ok?
Also I see, that this variable adds ‘scripts’ directory, so maybe it’s more correct to call it ENABLE_SCRIPTS?


Regards,
Konstantin



Avogadro-devel mailing list
Avogadro-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/avogadro-devel


Regards,
Konstantin

Яндекс.Почта. Письма есть. Спама - нет. http://mail.yandex.ru/nospam/sign


Regards,
Konstantin

Яндекс.Почта. Письма есть. Спама - нет. http://mail.yandex.ru/nospam/sign

2010/4/22 Konstantin Tokarev annulen@yandex.ru:

22.04.10, 18:00, “Konstantin Tokarev” annulen@yandex.ru:

21.04.10, 20:09, “Tim Vandermeersch” :

2010/4/21 Konstantin Tokarev :

21.04.10, 19:58, “Tim Vandermeersch” :

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:

Currently, OB and Avogadro use the same variable ENABLE_PYTHON. Is it possible to build Avogadro with Python and don’t build Python binding of OB without significant changes in build systems?

You don’t need the OB python bindings for compiling Avogadro. The is a
minimal amount of code allowing you to get an OBMol from an Avogadro
Molecule but that code doesn’t require OB python bindings at compile
time.

I’d gladly built OB with Python, but it doesn’t compile with 2.6.5, and 2.4 doesn’t work for Avo.

I see, not sure what the best solution is… We could rename one to
AVO_ENABLE_PYTHON…

It’s not a good solution - ENABLE_PYTHON is used in very many places, both CMake files and #defines in sources

But fortunately it’s almost unused in OB! I’ve rename it to OB_ENABLE_PYTHON, is it ok?
Also I see, that this variable adds ‘scripts’ directory, so maybe it’s more correct to call it ENABLE_SCRIPTS?

OB has several bindings. How about simply PYTHON_BINDINGS?
(PERL_BINDINGS, CSHARP_BINDINGS, JAVA_BINDINGS, etc. to come soon)


Regards,
Konstantin



Avogadro-devel mailing list
Avogadro-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/avogadro-devel


Regards,
Konstantin

Яндекс.Почта. Письма есть. Спама - нет. http://mail.yandex.ru/nospam/sign


Regards,
Konstantin

Яндекс.Почта. Письма есть. Спама - нет. http://mail.yandex.ru/nospam/sign



OpenBabel-Devel mailing list
OpenBabel-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openbabel-devel

22.04.10, 15:18, “Noel O’Boyle” baoilleach@gmail.com:

2010/4/22 Konstantin Tokarev :

22.04.10, 18:00, “Konstantin Tokarev” :

21.04.10, 20:09, “Tim Vandermeersch” :

2010/4/21 Konstantin Tokarev :

21.04.10, 19:58, “Tim Vandermeersch” :

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:

Currently, OB and Avogadro use the same variable ENABLE_PYTHON. Is it possible to build Avogadro with Python and don’t build Python binding of OB without significant changes in build systems?

You don’t need the OB python bindings for compiling Avogadro. The is a
minimal amount of code allowing you to get an OBMol from an Avogadro
Molecule but that code doesn’t require OB python bindings at compile
time.

I’d gladly built OB with Python, but it doesn’t compile with 2.6.5, and 2.4 doesn’t work for Avo.

I see, not sure what the best solution is… We could rename one to
AVO_ENABLE_PYTHON…

It’s not a good solution - ENABLE_PYTHON is used in very many places, both CMake files and #defines in sources

But fortunately it’s almost unused in OB! I’ve rename it to OB_ENABLE_PYTHON, is it ok?
Also I see, that this variable adds ‘scripts’ directory, so maybe it’s more correct to call it ENABLE_SCRIPTS?

OB has several bindings. How about simply PYTHON_BINDINGS?
(PERL_BINDINGS, CSHARP_BINDINGS, JAVA_BINDINGS, etc. to come soon)

OK. Everything except ENABLE_PYTHON goes :slight_smile:


Regards,
Konstantin



Avogadro-devel mailing list
Avogadro-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/avogadro-devel


Regards,
Konstantin

Яндекс.Почта. Письма есть. Спама - нет. http://mail.yandex.ru/nospam/sign


Regards,
Konstantin

Яндекс.Почта. Письма есть. Спама - нет. http://mail.yandex.ru/nospam/sign



OpenBabel-Devel mailing list
OpenBabel-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openbabel-devel


Regards,
Konstantin

Здесь спама нет http://mail.yandex.ru/nospam/sign