On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Kenny, Jason L <[email protected]> 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. > Yes. I think that SCons scripts should move packaging into the separate Tool. I've been working on definition of Python source package and wrapping an executable .zip for that. > I guess the real question is that: > > > > Do we need to have SCons not install as a python package? > Yes. Copying SCons into project source tree is it's primary feature for me. > 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? > The thought that we still didn't deal with our competence debt that we don't know all the use ways SCons was designed to support. I am not touching https://xkcd.com/1172/ https://bitbucket.org/scons/scons/pull-request/113/fix-for-bug-2769-which-should-allow-scons/diff#comment-1381011 So before any +1 or -1 I'd like to see something like above committed to be able to meditate on that when I have more braincells available for processing. -- anatoly t.
_______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
