Russel,
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Russel Winder <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, 2015-12-26 at 16:00 -0800, Bill Deegan wrote: > > If we change to suggesting pip/easy_install to be the preferred > > method of > > installing, then we can include any other packages we need and not > > have to > > "Vendorize" them. > > Or for real operating system distributions with package management, > just install with the package manager. > > On these system we do not need to vendorize since when SCons is > packaged it can be dependent on future and everything is OK. > Assuming the user has root access to install packages. Not always the case. (Yes, I know it's dumb, but I've worked at plenty clients where there was no root access) > > So the issue is people who install from the SCons release. Is it fair > to require them to pip things in? Can we have two releases one pure > SCons and one SCons plus future packaged at the moment of creating the > package and not vendorized in the SCons repository. > See above, so not really. It maybe that: a) no root access b) desire to support multiple scons and/or incompatible python packages c) an older distro and/or windows where there are no packages for relevant packages As I see it, it's really to vendorize, or not to vendorize, and not both, because that would require quite a bit more effort to keep up to date, and using pip is fairly straighforward, easy to setup, and as of now very simple to get installed. I think some of the one file python distribution formats may "freeze" all the packages into a single file, in which case I'd argue that would be effort better spent than supporting both ways. I'd like to recommend the virtualenv, pip install as the recommended non-system package way to install scons... -Bill
_______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
