>>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 9:13 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Matt Ryan"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-03-18 at 22:29 -0500, Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 07:04:10PM -0700, Bernard Li wrote:
>> >
>> > On 3/18/08, Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon <[EMA
On Tue, 2008-03-18 at 22:29 -0500, Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 07:04:10PM -0700, Bernard Li wrote:
> >
> > On 3/18/08, Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > is there any good reason why building the python module wrapper is not
> > > ena
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 07:04:10PM -0700, Bernard Li wrote:
>
> On 3/18/08, Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > is there any good reason why building the python module wrapper is not
> > enabled by default?, there will always of course the option of disabling it
> > usi
Hi Carlo:
On 3/18/08, Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> is there any good reason why building the python module wrapper is not
> enabled by default?, there will always of course the option of disabling it
> using --disable-python at configure time but will had the followi
Greetings,
is there any good reason why building the python module wrapper is not
enabled by default?, there will always of course the option of disabling it
using --disable-python at configure time but will had the following advantages
compared to the current situation :
1) make dist* will alway
