[Scons-dev] Packaging logic?

[Bill Deegan]

Jason,

I'm in agreement.
I think it would be great if the primary way for users to install SCons was
via pip (and virtualenv if they like, which I do).

I've been (as time allows) looking at the current setup logic and trying to
understand it's purposes.

I think it should be possible to provide most if not all of the use models
for the different install packages via pip and possibly with a runnable
zipp'd scons. (I think distutils supports this now?)

I made an initial attempt but, aborted it because I ran into many issues
and realized I needed a step back.

The only big question in my mind is if we were to stop providing the -local
package and install a runnable zip instead, would that cause a lot of
trouble for users.

-Bill


On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Kenny, Jason L <jason.l.kenny at intel.com>
wrote:

>
>
> Hi guys,
>
>
>
> I been fixing up Parts packaging logic so it is pip and wheel friendly. I
> was wonder what are the plans for SCons on this front? It seems to me that
> this should not be that complex for us to do in SCons. I just noticed there
> is a lot of work going on in the current scripts with coping data around.
> Is all this needed for a reason.
>
>
>
> I guess the real question is that:
>
>
>
> Do we need to have SCons not install as a python package?
>
>
>
> Minus the standalone install case. What value are we getting from this? I
> know for me this makes extending SCons harder as there is odd logic to find
> the real “path” to import SCons.
>
>
>
> I would like to propose simplifying this to make a pip friendly install of
> SCons.
>
>
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Jason
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scons-dev mailing list
> Scons-dev at scons.org
> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist2.pair.net/pipermail/scons-dev/attachments/20150401/7e5148e9/attachment.html>