Greetings,
On Dec 20, 2012, at 9:51 AM, "Managan, Rob" <[email protected]> wrote: > I wanted to weigh in with a path related issue that came up in the LaTeX > tools. > > My question is where does Scons stand these days on the issue of paths and > not using the whole user environment by default? >From my perspective NOT propagating the users environment by default is an >important feature of any sane build system. You want to have a repeatable build. Thus if a users environment can change the tools used by the build, you may end up (And I have) spending days trying to figure out why user A's build doesn't quite work the way User B's build does due to some bug in a specific version of the compiler.. That said, there's always been a (documented) way for developers of build systems using SCons as their build tool to propagate the users environment if it's desirable for them. > > For Macs, the Latex tools were rarely on the default paths that Scons > searched and therefore you had to create an Environment that included > os.environ's path. This was a real pain since most of the test/TEX/* > files did not do thatŠ So what I came up with and is in the code base now > is to add to the path the directories that the system adds to its path for > installed features like Latex and X11. We did this because Mac OSX has a > standard file/directory (/etc/paths and /etc/paths.d/*) that lists > directories that get added to the system path. > > Is there a similar set of paths on Windows that we should add to the > default? Or is there a place to look for a path when initializing a > specific tool that needs a given executable or set of executables? Each tool (assuming it's installed by the tools standard windows installer) has a default install path. If the user installs into a separate path, then in some (most?) cases (when the installer doesn't store the install info in the registry) it's o.k. for the build to fail to find the tool. I think the main problem we have now is that we don't do a good job notifying the user when we fail to find a tool, especially important if it was explicitly requested. I think this discussion actually has two parts: 1) Should SCons pull paths from the users environment when it is run by default? (I believe no) 2) Should the test infrastructure provide a way to specify alternative path in general, and for specific tools such that tests machines could have multiple versions/competing tools installed and get the test infrastructure to include/exclude them from a given test run. (I believe this may resolve your issue above) -Bill > > I think is one issue that needs work as we discuss tool initialization. > > *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- > Rob Managan email managan at llnl.gov > LLNL phone: 925-423-0903 > P.O. Box 808, L-095 FAX: 925-422-3389 > Livermore, CA 94551-0808 > > > > > > On 12/20/12 9:09 AM, "Dirk Bächle" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello developers, >> >> based on my proposed changes to the current tests in src/test there has >> been some discussion about how a Tool should work. Especially in >> connection with the LaTeX Tool, questions like: >> >> - Do we want to have one "latex" Tool for all, or separate ones for >> "miktex", "texlive"...? >> - Should a Tool try to find a "Miktex" installation in the current >> system, or simply search for >> the "latex" executable while relying on a correct setup of the PATH >> variable? >> >> showed up. >> > > _______________________________________________ > Scons-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev _______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list [email protected] http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
