[Scons-dev] SCons doesn't bootstrap without libxml2

[anatoly techtonik]

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 7:21 AM, anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Dirk Bächle <tshortik at gmx.de> wrote:

>> On 19.02.2014 00:14, anatoly techtonik wrote:

>>>

>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:08 AM, Dirk Bächle <tshortik at gmx.de> wrote:

>>>>

>>>> [...]

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Okay, and when you have a simple SConstruct in a folder like

>>>> "/tmp/sconstest", change into this folder via "cd /tmp/sconstest" and

>>>> then

>>>> call

>>>>

>>>> python /full/path/to/scons/repo/bootstrap.py

>>>>

>>>> , does that work in 2.3.0 without having libxml2/lxml installed or do you

>>>> see an error?

>>>

>>> There is no error and should not be.

>>

>>

>> Good, so you are able to develop SCons and run a checked-out, or even

>> modified, version of SCons against a build project, right?

>

> No. The user experience is that the run failed while previously the

> same user scenario worked without problem.

>

>> Because in your earlier mail you said:

>>

>> "

>>

>> My opinion is that by adding additional dependencies to run the SCons

>> without errors from a fresh checkout we are significantly increasing

>> contribution

>> barrier and discouraging people from participating.

>>

>> People need to checkout and run to see the power of SCons. Not read,

>> checkout, install, setup, run cycle. Something like this.

>>

>> "

>> But this is obviously not the case.

>

> The two things do not contradict.

>

>> When following the first instructions in

>> the top-level README.rst, people are able to call SCons without installing

>> it and without having to resolve any further dependencies.

>

> Ok. I'll correct myself. For users:

> - read, checkout, read, run

> + checkout, run

>

> For me:

> - edit, runtests.py -a

> + edit, bootstrap.py

>

>> So there is

>> actually no reason to fear that users or first-time developers get a bad

>> first impression of SCons, when they try to use the latest development

>> version.

>

> Just make a corridor testing. Mine failed.

>

>> Can you see that too, and agree with me that we don't have a real problem in

>> this very specific use case (cloning the repo, and calling SCons directly)?

>

> It depends on how seriously you take the user experience discipline, but

> let's just say that I am a stubborn conservative freak and want the previous

> behavior back. =)


And I agree the the subject line is confusing. SCons does bootstrap ok, but
for users it is not evident, because after bootstrap process continues there is
immediately a build phase which fails.
-- 
anatoly t.