On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Kenny, Jason L <jason.l.ke...@intel.com> wrote:
> What do you mean by “a runnable zip” > > > > My main thought is that we move to using the wheel format. Given that my > current tasks I have been learning much more detail on this. What I am > still not sure about is if with wheel we can support more than one version > of SCons installed at a time. > Seems if you use virtualenv, this would be a non-issue.. I don't know much about wheel format. > This may not be an issue as this could be easily done with the standard > virtual environment package in python. Given we have that we can still > provide user with an msi/rpm/dep/zip/tar.gz package format. > > > > > > As a FYI .. it seem we want to think of this in terms of setuputils and > pip. Python at level 2.7.8-9 and above have an ensurepip package to make > sure you can easily install pip and use it if it is not there. The wheel > format seems to be the replacement for egg and has a standard PEP behind it. > > > > Jason > > > > > > *From:* Scons-dev [mailto:scons-dev-boun...@scons.org] *On Behalf Of *Bill > Deegan > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 1, 2015 10:22 AM > *To:* SCons developer list > *Subject:* Re: [Scons-dev] Packaging logic? > > > > Jason, > > I'm in agreement. > > I think it would be great if the primary way for users to install SCons > was via pip (and virtualenv if they like, which I do). > > I've been (as time allows) looking at the current setup logic and trying > to understand it's purposes. > > I think it should be possible to provide most if not all of the use models > for the different install packages via pip and possibly with a runnable > zipp'd scons. (I think distutils supports this now?) > > I made an initial attempt but, aborted it because I ran into many issues > and realized I needed a step back. > > The only big question in my mind is if we were to stop providing the > -local package and install a runnable zip instead, would that cause a lot > of trouble for users. > > -Bill > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Kenny, Jason L <jason.l.ke...@intel.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi guys, > > > > I been fixing up Parts packaging logic so it is pip and wheel friendly. I > was wonder what are the plans for SCons on this front? It seems to me that > this should not be that complex for us to do in SCons. I just noticed there > is a lot of work going on in the current scripts with coping data around. > Is all this needed for a reason. > > > > I guess the real question is that: > > > > Do we need to have SCons not install as a python package? > > > > Minus the standalone install case. What value are we getting from this? I > know for me this makes extending SCons harder as there is odd logic to find > the real “path” to import SCons. > > > > I would like to propose simplifying this to make a pip friendly install of > SCons. > > > > Any thoughts? > > Jason > > > _______________________________________________ > Scons-dev mailing list > Scons-dev@scons.org > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > Scons-dev mailing list > Scons-dev@scons.org > https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list Scons-dev@scons.org https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev