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

[anatoly techtonik]

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Dirk Bächle <tshortik at gmx.de> wrote:

> On 19.02.2014 06:15, Bill Deegan wrote:

>>

>> Anatoly,

>>

>> bootstrap.py is not meant to be run by users, only developers.

>>

>> -Bill

>>

>

> I'd even go one step further and say: it's primarily meant to be run by

> release managers.


It looks like I will be urged to demand prooflinks soon. =)

The previous behavior was useful for development, so if I wanted to increase
participation and quality of the code, I'd try to satisfy as much conflicting
interests as possible.

Right now I don't really see where is the conflict. Well, now that I think about
it - I can revert to previous behavior myself, but it will take more time to
investigate what was done, so if you can pinpoint me to the piece of code that
needs to be brought back it will save all of us a several hours of debates and
free this time on something useful.


> Nobody forces you now or has forced

> you in the past, to run this additional step, right?


I miss the context. Which step and why should I be forced?
Right now I am forced to install doc toolchain just to run a quick
integration test for which bootstrap was used. You're not providing
any alternative for this scenario and forcing me to think that I am
developing SCons wrong and SCons was not meant to be developed
this way. Sorry for the tone, I don't want to offend anyone, I type this
in a hurry and have to apply critical logic to outline all arguments as
quickly as possible.


> Or is it your understanding that every developer is required to run the full

> build scenario?


No. It is your understanding. Sorry.

The point of conflict that you don't accept is that bootstrap.py can be used
and was used in the past as quick integration test. Please think about this
and provide viable alternative to the person who is been robbed of his favorite
hack. =)


> And that's what we did, we made SCons better such that you don't have to

> write MAN pages by hand anymore for example. As a consequence of this, you

> simply don't get away anymore with what you did in the past: running only

> half of the packaging test without the documentation.


You are forcing people to a better change. If you want to make SCons better
make the documentation build out of development loop cycle. This will save
that precious bits of time that we all have at scarce.

I am not saying not to build docs. I am saying - make it optional. Please
hear me. bootstrap.py is not for building SCons. It is for testing what's in
repository, and SCons SConstruct most of the time is the only comprehensive
example you can test against.


> But this is also a change to the better side and not meant to be against you

> personally. It reduces the work load for the actual release managers because

> errors in the documentation syntax are revealed much earlier in the

> development process.


Resurrect buildbots. There is a machine at speed.python.org that nobody
cares about, so if you send a letter to Jessie, I don't see any problems in
him to allow to use it for SCons. The machine can automatically build the
docs and notify everybody about these errors. This will work. Forcing people
to build docs to "reduce the work load" for release managers by spending
much more developer's time on that task is the balance I can't agree with.
Developer can become a release manager, but the opposite is not true.


> And you can still get back to your old routine and workflow and help the

> project even more and better than before, if you decide to take that little

> step and install the libxml2 or lxml Python bindings.


I am on Windows, and for some reason pip doesn't install any of them.


> And if you decide to not install it, and simply skip the full packaging

> build, that'll be fine with everyone too...and you can save even more of

> your time and invest it in development itself.


You're again forcing me skip running integration test and do the
development the way you want. Do I look like demanding from you to skip
building documentation altogether? Why the resistance? I'd personally
resist only because I could be lazy to do the change. Is that it? =)