Hi, On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 11:28 +0200, Carsten Neumann wrote: > Hi, > > Allen Bierbaum wrote: > > Dirk Reiners wrote: > >> Carsten Neumann wrote: > >>> I'd appreciate it if you could try this out and give me some feedback on > >>> your experience (I might have accidentally killed your favorite feature > >>> ;) ). > >> in general I like it, it seems cleaner than before. The only thing I'm not > >> too > >> happy about is the need to have an SConscript in each directory, but for > >> now > >> let's keep it that way. > > > > That does sounds like a step back. What is the reason for doing it this > > way as opposed to build.info files or even SConscript files only being > > in the "parent" directories for libraries? > > it is far simpler to implement and IMHO understand. I've just added a > warning that complains about directories without SConscript file, this > should avoid confusion when new directories are added to the tree. I > could even turn this into an error, to make it harder to miss ?
ok found the stable branch and there it seem to work better. One short question, you seem to have removed the compiler info from the directories and the file names, why ?. In general I would prefer the old way so I only have to remember passing icc=1 or in order to switch compilers. I could live with the compiler=icc (as it seems to be now) but all the dependent filed/dirs should change automatically (e.g. options, build dir, scons internal stuff). kind regards, gerrit ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Opensg-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensg-core
