> 
>  Mark Hammond released a build script to the list (about a year ago) which
>  is mirrored here:  http://osdir.com/ml/mozilla.devel.xpcom.python/2006-07/msg00012.html
> 
> 
>  The difference between the XPIs generated by Mark Hammond's script and the
>  XPI you referenced is that Mark's packages the Python binaries in the XPI
>  itself rather than requiring the user to have any specific version of python
>  installed..


Interesting...so what does the download size of that end up being?  And I'm
guessing it would be a separate .xpi for every OS?  I actually started this
thread over here:
http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.platform/browse_thread/thread/51b4816e5a7b55b8/99
1ceec869975506?hl=en#991ceec869975506
and Mark Hammond mentioned the .xpi but I didn't hear from him again.

Mark's script is targeted towards newer builds but I massaged it a little
>  and got it to work on the 1.8 branches (Firefox 1.5 - 2)..  I've built and
>  tested lightly on Win32 and Linux 2.6..  I've been meaning to write this
>  up and post the 1.8 branch script (with Mark's permission) along with the
>  XPI's, so if this would be helpful, let me know and I'll see if I can get
>  around to it sometime week..


Well, I guess I'm at a crossroads as to which way to go at this point.  I'm
wondering if it's worth the effort to do this separate .xpi thing or just
package my extension with a python-enabled XULRunner.  Basically it boils
down to me hitting walls where functionality is concerned with the Mozilla
platform and wishing to extend my extension :)   I've also been looking at
this:
http://starkravingfinkle.org/blog/2007/09/hello-js-ctypes-goodbye-binary-components/
b/c, let's face it, as the article states creating C++ components is a hell
of a job compared to JS components.  And that's another reason I'm looking
at Python.

That said, if you'd like to work on the script that sounds great and I'm
sure the greater community would appreciate your efforts.  But whether I
would use it is something I'm still trying to figure out.

As the Dude would say: a lot of ins, a lot of outs, a lot of what-have-yous