[Python-Dev] Python for Windows CE

[Luke Dunstan]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: ""Martin v. Löwis"" <martin at v.loewis.de>
To: "Luke Dunstan" <coder_infidel at hotmail.com>
Cc: <Python-Dev at python.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 5:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Python for Windows CE


> Luke Dunstan wrote:
>> 1. Is there any reason in principle why patches for Windows CE support 
>> would
>> be rejected?
>
> No, not in principle. Of course,
> - the patch shouldn't break anything
> - you should state an explicit commitment to support the port for
>  some years (or else it might get removed at the slightest problem)

Thanks for your response. I hope I can continue to support Python for 
Windows CE for a while at least.

>> 4. The latest existing patch set uses os.name = "ce", and this can be 
>> used
>> to distinguish Windows CE from other operating systems in Python code. 
>> The
>> existing patches also set sys.platform = "Pocket PC", but I am not so 
>> keen
>> on keeping this, mainly because Windows CE is equivalent to Win32 in many
>> cases. Any comments?
>
> I would guide the decision based on the number of API changes you need
> to make to the standard library (e.g. distutils). In any case, the
> platform module should be able to reliably report the specific system
> (including the specific processor architecture).

OK. Actually I think distutils will be the last thing to be ported because 
it is not necessary for using the rest of Python. Does distutils has support 
for cross-compiling anyway?

>
>> (b) Instead we could use #ifdef HAVE_DIRECT_H, requiring patches to 
>> #define
>> HAVE_DIRECT_H for other platforms
>
> That would be best. Python generally uses autoconf methodology, which
> implies that conditionally-existing headers should be detected using
> HAVE_*_H.
>
> Regards,
> Martin

OK, but what about ANSI C headers like signal.h? I expected HAVE_SIGNAL_H to 
exist already but I just came across this patch:

http://svn.python.org/view/python/trunk/pyconfig.h.in?rev=35255&r1=35221&r2=35255

I am guessing that the reason for this patch was to reduce the number of 
#ifdefs in the Python source to ease maintenance. Would you want to add some 
of them back again?

Luke