> On Dec 26, 2015, at 10:19 , Russel Winder <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, 2015-12-25 at 13:15 -0500, Neal Becker wrote: >> > […] >> >> I should have said, I don't think we can make installing future a >> requirement for using scons. >> >> In my case, I was using lineprofiler. It does something strange >> with >> builtins, and the reason lineprofiler mysteriously stopped working >> after >> future was installed was hard to find. > > So the consequence of this is that we can only go to a level 1 futurize > and then the rest needs to be manually hacked so that there is no > future dependency? I suspect this means we will end up rewriting quite > a chunk of future, though not the bits needed for Python 2.6. >
I’m not entirely convinced that future is a bad plan. If it works with scons and scons is using a private copy of future that it ships with then it can’t have any impact on other parts of the system. The “builtins” package is not going to affect people’s SConstruct files. — Tim Jenness _______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
