[Scons-dev] New SCons doc toolchain...

[William Deegan]

All,

I see the following when running bootstrap.py

SCons import failed. Trying to run from source directory
scons: Reading SConscript files ...
scons: done reading SConscript files.
scons: Building targets ...
scons: `.' is up to date.
scons: done building targets.
SCons import failed. Trying to run from source directory
scons: Reading SConscript files ...
scons: done reading SConscript files.
scons: Building targets ...
scons: `.' is up to date.
scons: done building targets.
SCons import failed. Trying to run from source directory
scons: Reading SConscript files ...
scons: done reading SConscript files.
scons: Building targets ...
scons: `.' is up to date.
scons: done building targets.
SCons import failed. Trying to run from source directory
scons: Reading SConscript files ...
scons: done reading SConscript files.
scons: Building targets ...
scons: `.' is up to date.
scons: done building targets.
scons: done reading SConscript files.
scons: Building targets ...


Also I had to install the following (on ubuntu 10.04)
  sudo apt-get install python-libxml2 python-libxslt1 python-epydoc fop python2.6-dev

Note that without the proper tools installed the build failed complaining about scons.1 missing.
Would it be possible to allow bootstrap.py to complete skipping the parts which won't build due to missing tools?

I don't remember if that's what we did before.

Also, probably a good idea to update: bin/scons_dev_master.py  to have an updated list of tools needed would be great.

Other than that a quick scan through the docs looks good.
I think some tweaking of fonts and such (as I believe Russel suggested) is probably a good idea, but by no means a blocker on merging.

Thanks for all your work Dirk!

Some more below.

On Apr 29, 2013, at 12:15 AM, Dirk Bächle <tshortik at gmx.de> wrote:


> On 29.04.2013 00:38, Gary Oberbrunner wrote:

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Dirk Bächle <tshortik at gmx.de> wrote:

>> On 28.04.2013 20:20, Gary Oberbrunner wrote:

>>> 

>>> [...]

>>> 

>> 

>> I am ready to prepare a pull request any time...if we all agree that the current status of my experimental branch is good enough to go, I'll latch on.

>> 

>> The only thing I might suggest prior to a pull request would be to build the docs into the build dir.

>>  

> 

> What would be the advantage of this then? Sorry that I have to ask, but some of the XML files use hard-coded paths to include the generated lists of tools and builders, for example. That's why this task might not be trivial...

> I'd also like to still be able and simply call SCons from the "doc/user" or "doc/man" folder itself, while editing documents.


Seems reasonable that the build products would go in the build dir.
I believe that's been the case up to now.

Typically when I'm working on such, I may do a rm -rf build, and then rebuild to make sure the clean build doesn't have issues.

-Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://two.pairlist.net/pipermail/scons-dev/attachments/20130429/834965f5/attachment.html>