[Scons-dev] That was easy…

[Bill Deegan]

Russel,


On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Russel Winder <russel at winder.org.uk> wrote:

> On Sat, 2015-12-26 at 16:00 -0800, Bill Deegan wrote:
> > If we change to suggesting pip/easy_install to be the preferred
> > method of
> > installing, then we can include any other packages we need and not
> > have to
> > "Vendorize" them.
>
> Or for real operating system distributions with package management,
> just install with the package manager.
>
> On these system we do not need to vendorize since when SCons is
> packaged it can be dependent on future and everything is OK.
>

Assuming the user has root access to install packages. Not always the case.
(Yes, I know it's dumb, but I've worked at plenty clients where there was
no root access)


>
> So the issue is people who install from the SCons release. Is it fair
> to require them to pip things in? Can we have two releases one pure
> SCons and one SCons plus future packaged at the moment of creating the
> package and not vendorized in the SCons repository.
>


See above, so not really. It maybe that:
a) no root access
b) desire to support multiple scons and/or incompatible python packages
c) an older distro and/or windows where there are no packages for relevant
packages


As I see it, it's really to vendorize, or not to vendorize, and not both,
because that would require quite a bit more effort to keep up to date, and
using pip is fairly straighforward, easy to setup, and as of now very
simple to get installed.

I think some of the one file python distribution formats may "freeze" all
the packages into a single file, in which case I'd argue that would be
effort better spent than supporting both ways.

I'd like to recommend the virtualenv, pip install as the recommended
non-system package way to install scons...


-Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist2.pair.net/pipermail/scons-dev/attachments/20160110/a72936a4/attachment.html>