On Sunday, Sep 7, 2003, at 16:48 America/New_York, Just van Rossum 
wrote:

>  Bob Ippolito wrote:
> 
> >> 3rd party packages. How deep is potool's dependence on ctypes?
> >
> > Very shallow, it just uses the Structure class for convenience.  I'll
> > write a metaclass that does what ctypes Structure module does (as far
> > as I'm using it, at least) and post a new version today.
> 
>  Cool. Now if you could turn it into a one-file module, I'm sure Jack
>  won't mind checking it into plat-mac... But let's plan this out a bit
>  more before we waste too much time.
> 
>  Does potools support otool -L type stuff? It would be really useful if
>  we could do some automatic dependency checking.

It is pretty much a one file module, pinstall_name_tool and potool are 
examples of how to use it (they emulate otool -L[v] and 
pinstall_name_tool) using the mach_o module.  The functionality from 
both of these can easily be turned into convenience methods in the 
mach_o module.

Yes, it does everything otool -L and otool -Lv does, and it does 
everything that install_name_tool does.  It should even have the same 
output format.

>  Another problem with bundlebuilder is that it needs the dev tools
>  installed for --strip to work, which is kindof neccesary to produce
>  bundles of an acceptable size. Have you any idea whether a pure Python
>  version of strip would be feasable? Alternatively, we could perhaps 
>  ship
>  the strip executable somehow, if the license would allow that. An IDE
>  could just include it for example.

I don't see any reason why strip couldn't be emulated.  I'd need to 
wrap more of the mach_o headers, for sure, but it would probably be a 
nifty experiment to have pure python access to the whole symbol table.  
Currently, it can read the entire mach-o header, though it only 
understands the parts relevant to otool / install_name_tool.

-bob


_______________________________________________
Pythonmac-SIG maillist  -  Pythonmac-SIG@[...].org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig