[email protected], > And you haven't given an example where you need scons to ignore PATH, > unfortunately.
I have explained the rationale behind my preference for the unmodified SCons behavior in quite some detail. I have made an effort to take any and all postings in this thread seriously, to respond to them, and to address the issues that are being raised to the best of my abilities given the usual time constraints that apply to contributors to a free software project. I have tried really hard to figure out what I can do to serve everyone's best interest. Now, when I look at the list of people who have contributed to SCons in the past, I see this: | /usr/local/src/nixpkgs-current$ git log --pretty=short pkgs/development/tools/build-managers/scons | git shortlog | eelco (6): | * Added the build manager SCons. | * Copy a bunch of files to nix.cs.uu.nl. | * Reverted r6713, r6711, r4623, r3660, r2237. There rewrote fetchurl | * Rewrite all the SourceForge URLs to mirror://sourceforge/. | * Merged the stdenv branch | * Fix an infinite recursion in scons. | | raskin (1): | Python must be propagatedBuildInputs now that they are using env | | roconnor (1): | Patching scons to give an absolute path to python rather than using ".../bin/env python" | | simons (11): | scons: updated to version 0.95.5 and added selectVersion dispatcher | scons: install library files in python's site-package directory | Cosmetic, no functional change intended. | Updated scons and twisted; added buildbot. | Updated scons to version 1.2.0. | scons: don't overwrite a pre-existing PYTHONPATH in the wrapper | pkgs/development/tools/build-managers/scons: bumped to version 1.3.0 | Moved 'maintainers' attribute into the meta section of the expression. | pkgs/development/tools/build-managers/scons: updated to version 2.0.1 | pkgs/development/tools/build-managers/scons: move --mandir and --infodir to standard locations | pkgs/development/tools/build-managers/scons: cosmetic build improvements Eelco and I have both stated that we would prefer Marc's patch not be applied to the standard SCons expression. We have both explained our reasons for that opinion, and we've also tried to offer alternative solutions that address your concerns in another way. Yet, after having written over a dozen postings or so, here you are outright demanding that I deliver even further explanations before you are satisfied! WTF? All I here from you, from Kevin, and from Marc are wild unsubstantiated claims about how the world is going to come to an end unless we modify SCons, even though the package has worked just fine without those modifications for the last 5 years! Frankly, you are the ones who demand an extremely intrusive change to SCons, so the burden of proof is on *you*. Unfortunately, you choose not to reveal your real name, so I can't be sure, but as far as I can tell, your posting from Dec 22 was the first time ever you said anything on this mailing list. The first posting from Kevin is dated Jan 2nd. Apparently, both of you are somewhat new to this project. Still, here you are lecturing us about how we have no idea how stuff is supposed to work in NixOS. This really sucks. Peter _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.cs.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
