On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 3:44 PM, William Deegan <[email protected]>wrote:
> Gary, > > > On Jan 6, 2013, at 9:30 AM, Gary Oberbrunner <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Someone at my work recently discovered that updating SCons to 2.2.0 breaks > his build. The reason is it now puts /usr/local/bin in the PATH > (env['PATH']) before /usr/bin (or sth similar). He has a bad version of a > utility in /usr/local/bin, which now gets used instead of the right one. I > was worried that this might happen. He bisected to find the change that > did it, and I've included his analysis below. > > > I"m looking at that change set, and it's picking up paths from > /etc/paths.d, which seems reasonable for a mac. > It's not hardcoded /usr/local/bin. > So likely the issue is that your colleague has a broken tool installed in > a location which system config files say tools should be found in. > Hmm, I see your point. I'll look into it. It looks like it always appends, and as you say it uses /etc/paths.d. Although I notice it doesn't set delete_existing=0 in AppendENVPath, so any paths in /etc/paths.d will be moved to the end of the path -- if that's not deliberate, I'd vote to change that. So if the incoming path has /usr/local/bin first, and it's also in /etc/paths.d, this logic won't move it to the end. There are several things we can do: > 1. do nothing, that's just how it is now. > 2. make the LaTeX stuff use absolute paths rather than relying on > env['PATH'] > 3. Somehow set PATH only for that tool, without mucking with the standard > PATH. > > I don't like #2, it's ugly. #1 is easiest, but since our goal is to make > reproducible builds, modifying the path globally is not ideal. That leaves > us with #3. I don't have any ideas off the top of my head for how to > handle that; does anyone? > > > I'd say in your colleague's case, best to have him uninstall the broken > tool. > Yeah, he's already done that (or equivalent). So it's not a hi priority issue, just was surprising that updating SCons broke it. > Which leads me to toolchain revamp. I'm going to write up a message about > this shortly; I think it should be one of our highest priority projects for > 2013 (along with several others), and I'm willing to take it on. > > > So are you then thinking, toolchain and python 3.x? Or at least 2.7 with > effort to get it to run on 3.x? > (Probably best discussed in another thread) > Indeed. I think we have a few projects we should try for in 2013. Let me try to put my thoughts together soon. -- Gary
_______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list [email protected] http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
