[Scons-dev] Packaging logic?

[William Blevins]

As long as RPM distributions are still available, pip sounds like a win.
On Apr 3, 2015 12:32 PM, "Alexandre Feblot" <alexandre.feblot at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Oh, ok.
> Thanks for the explanation.
> Forget my previous comment, then :-)
>
> --
> Alexandre
>
> Le 3 avr. 2015 à 18:28, Kenny, Jason L <jason.l.kenny at intel.com> a écrit :
>
>  The current way is to get a source dist and install it.
>
> This would not stop. You would be able to do the same thing.
>
>
>
> The difference in the below would be:
>
>
>
> Pip install scons
>
>
>
> would be default go to the internet and get SCons
>
>
>
> pip install .
>
>
>
> would install the current setup.py in the directory ( and I should add
> allow you to then do a “pip uninstall scons” to remove it. You can still do
> a “python setup.py install” as well you however would now have meta
> generated to remove it with a nice command.
>
>
>
> Honestly the current model would work as is, making it work with pip just
> means we have more functional options to provide.
>
>
>
> Jason
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Scons-dev [mailto:scons-dev-bounces at scons.org
> <scons-dev-bounces at scons.org>] *On Behalf Of *Alexandre Feblot
> *Sent:* Friday, April 3, 2015 4:45 AM
> *To:* SCons developer list
> *Subject:* Re: [Scons-dev] Packaging logic?
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> On environments where  there is no internet access (banks, army, ...), or
> if scons needs to be internally patched before being installed, the current
> way is much easier than using pip, I guess.
>
> --
>
> Alexandre
>
>
> Le 2 avr. 2015 à 22:33, Bill Deegan <bill at baddogconsulting.com> a écrit :
>
>  Anatoly,
>
>
>
> On non-windows platforms the current recommendation is download the .tgz,
> unpack, python setup.py it.
>
>
>
> That is certainly more complicated than:
>
>
>
> pip install scons.
>
>
>
>
>
> -Bill
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 5:43 AM, anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>   On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Bill Deegan <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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>  _______________________________________________
> 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/20150403/25766c1a/attachment.html>