Anatoly, bootstrap.py is not meant to be run by users, only developers.
-Bill On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 8:24 PM, anatoly techtonik <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list [email protected] http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
