--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Dear Bo, > > >> > I found that I could convert all the python script to .exe. > >> > Thus I can remove Pyhthon dependecy. > >> > >> Are you sure? > > > Also, there are some dynamically generated sh scripts that might be > > translated to dynamically generated python script later so an > > interpreter is needed. > > Is that means that we could decrease the necessary surrounding > programs to > approximately one. That should supply as a script platform for all > the configuration > and other (eg. conversion) purposes? > > I would prefer a prepackaged python. > If we supply python with lyx, the user will feel comfortable, because > (s)he wont > need to install other software (worring about correct path env. var.) > to get the software > completly working. > > From the opposite side, in case of python 2.4.x, also there is some > trouble with > license. When I do package the scripts, it will copy the > "MSVCR71.dll" next to the > archive. This file has not so good licensing conditions, for details > see px2exe > mailing list. > > Also the 2.4.x python.dll is quite larger, making slower to load > at runtime. Therefore I had python 2.3.5 for packaging (to reduce > donwload > time, and to avoid licensing conditions). >
After some thought, I deem this approach somewhat wrongheaded. Wouldn't it be easier to embed Python right inside LyX's guts, using de facto python as a scripting language for LyX, the same way emacs uses elisp, or TeXmacs uses Scheme? Check http://docs.python.org/ext/embedding.html to see what I mean. So instead of generating sh or python scripts, as the current code does, it could be easier to run or call fragments of python from within LyX. I've said this already in another thread, so perhaps we should merge at this point... Cheers, Luis. __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
