I think it is reasonable for SCons to support symlinks on systems that support symlinks.
I develop primarily on UNIX-based systems and I don't use symlinks often with SCons because SCons didn't support symlink copy. Example: versioned shared libraries. For me to do libA.so, libA.so.1, and libA.so.1.0.0, I actually had to make 3 copies of the same file before which isn't practical (or acceptable behavior really). If we have a lot of complaints, then we could can the default. I don't see this happening. I think there are fair more people that want this behavior which didn't exist, than those who will be opposed to it. V/R, William On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:36 PM, anatoly techtonik <techto...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Gary Oberbrunner <ga...@oberbrunner.com> > wrote: > > What's wrong with copying symlinks if that's what the user wants? > > Nothing wrong if user know that he wants to copy symlinks. But I am sure > most users just want to copy ordinary files. So if somebody wants symlink > copy, it should be stated explicitly and not be a default behavior. > > > I have some pure python Windows symlink code lying around somewhere too. > > Works fine on NFL. > > os.symlink() is not that code and that is the code that unconditionally > invoked > on Copy if I am not mistaken. > _______________________________________________ > Scons-dev mailing list > Scons-dev@scons.org > http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev >
_______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list Scons-dev@scons.org http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
