On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 7:21 AM, anatoly techtonik <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Dirk Bächle <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 19.02.2014 00:14, anatoly techtonik wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:08 AM, Dirk Bächle <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> >>>> Okay, and when you have a simple SConstruct in a folder like >>>> "/tmp/sconstest", change into this folder via "cd /tmp/sconstest" and >>>> then >>>> call >>>> >>>> python /full/path/to/scons/repo/bootstrap.py >>>> >>>> , does that work in 2.3.0 without having libxml2/lxml installed or do you >>>> see an error? >>> >>> There is no error and should not be. >> >> >> Good, so you are able to develop SCons and run a checked-out, or even >> modified, version of SCons against a build project, right? > > No. The user experience is that the run failed while previously the > same user scenario worked without problem. > >> Because in your earlier mail you said: >> >> " >> >> My opinion is that by adding additional dependencies to run the SCons >> without errors from a fresh checkout we are significantly increasing >> contribution >> barrier and discouraging people from participating. >> >> People need to checkout and run to see the power of SCons. Not read, >> checkout, install, setup, run cycle. Something like this. >> >> " >> But this is obviously not the case. > > The two things do not contradict. > >> When following the first instructions in >> the top-level README.rst, people are able to call SCons without installing >> it and without having to resolve any further dependencies. > > Ok. I'll correct myself. For users: > - read, checkout, read, run > + checkout, run > > For me: > - edit, runtests.py -a > + edit, bootstrap.py > >> So there is >> actually no reason to fear that users or first-time developers get a bad >> first impression of SCons, when they try to use the latest development >> version. > > Just make a corridor testing. Mine failed. > >> Can you see that too, and agree with me that we don't have a real problem in >> this very specific use case (cloning the repo, and calling SCons directly)? > > It depends on how seriously you take the user experience discipline, but > let's just say that I am a stubborn conservative freak and want the previous > behavior back. =)
And I agree the the subject line is confusing. SCons does bootstrap ok, but for users it is not evident, because after bootstrap process continues there is immediately a build phase which fails. -- anatoly t. _______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list [email protected] http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
