[Scons-dev] Packaging logic?

[Kenny, Jason L]

Real quick.

I don’t there is a suggestion on not supporting standalone drops, etc.. I still would like to provide a msi on windows. There is a difference between a sdidt like drop vs a full standalone (py2exe like) drop however. Different systems view this differently. In general on linux and mac you have python as an easy package, windows it is a separate install ( still easy). Having a full standalone drop for mac, linux, windows mean that it easier for SCons to raise the base python version as we can provide a python 3.5 for example as part of the install. However I have found this idea is easy on windows, hard on linux.

Jason

From: Scons-dev [mailto:scons-dev-bounces at scons.org] On Behalf Of anatoly techtonik
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2015 4:43 AM
To: SCons developer list
Subject: Re: [Scons-dev] Packaging logic?

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Bill Deegan <bill at baddogconsulting.com<mailto:bill at baddogconsulting.com>> wrote:
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).

This is a can of worms IMO. SCons is not tool for Python programmers, so if you do that, you will require people to learn about Python packaging, which is an unnecessary hell. If the tools is needed by Python programmers, then plz. state how exactly.

Put the real world need first - what are you trying to achieve with that, excluding the "consistency with Python world"?

The primary function and the way of using SCons for me (and my vision for everybody else) is to be a build tool that can be put into source repository, so that you can directly build after checkout without messing with "apt-get/yum/pip install ..." and friends.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist2.pair.net/pipermail/scons-dev/attachments/20150402/669f707c/attachment.html>