I'd be fine with moving scons forward to require 0.96.93. That version is nearly two years old, so should be reasonable. Is there anything else that would want to have us move to something even newer?
Nate On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:38 PM, Ali Saidi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1.hasn't.been.fixed.yet :) > > Ali > > On Oct 14, 2008, at 11:05 PM, nathan binkert wrote: > >>> On a somewhat related topic, env.Copy() prints a deprecated warning >>> and will go away within a year. env.Clone() is the new syntax, >>> however >>> that wasn't added until scons 0.96.93. Currently we're depending on >>> scons 0.96.91. Should we change it? We could put it an a try/except >>> block to support both. >> >> Yeah, I've been thinking about that. I really don't want to add a >> try/except block. It would be nice to just move to a new version of >> scons some day and get rid of all of the old warts. What version >> would allow us to get rid of that bug that scons has with directories >> that only have headers? >> >> Nate >> _______________________________________________ >> m5-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev >> > > _______________________________________________ > m5-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev > > _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
