[Scons-dev] Packaging logic?

[Bill Deegan]

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Kenny, Jason L <jason.l.kenny at intel.com>
wrote:

>  What do you mean by “a runnable zip”
>
>
>
> My main thought is that we move to using the wheel format. Given that my
> current tasks I have been learning much more detail on this. What I am
> still not sure about is if with wheel we can support more than one version
> of SCons installed at a time.
>

Seems if you use virtualenv, this would be a non-issue..
I don't know much about wheel format.


> This may not be an issue as this could be easily done with the standard
> virtual environment package in python. Given we have that we can still
> provide user with an msi/rpm/dep/zip/tar.gz package format.
>
>
>
>
>
> As a FYI .. it seem we want to think of this in terms of setuputils and
> pip. Python at level 2.7.8-9 and above have an ensurepip package to make
> sure you can easily install pip and use it if it is not there. The wheel
> format seems to be the replacement for egg and has a standard PEP behind it.
>
>
>
> Jason
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Scons-dev [mailto:scons-dev-bounces at scons.org] *On Behalf Of *Bill
> Deegan
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 1, 2015 10:22 AM
> *To:* SCons developer list
> *Subject:* Re: [Scons-dev] Packaging logic?
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150401/11faf80b/attachment.html>