[Scons-dev] SCons doesn't bootstrap without libxml2

[Bill Deegan]

Might I suggest we stop discussing it and just propose pull requests.
If you have a specific change in mind, then make it and send a pull request.

That said, I only see one person with an issue to the change made. (unless
I'm misreading), and lots of time spent discussing.

Personally, I'd like to get scons setup so I can do : pip install -e scons
and then just use that virtualenv.
I've done that with other projects (buildbot), and it's pretty darned easy
and useful.

-Bill


On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:21 AM, anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com>wrote:


> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Dirk Bächle <tshortik at gmx.de> wrote:

> > On 19.02.2014 06:15, Bill Deegan wrote:

> >>

> >> Anatoly,

> >>

> >> bootstrap.py is not meant to be run by users, only developers.

> >>

> >> -Bill

> >>

> >

> > I'd even go one step further and say: it's primarily meant to be run by

> > release managers.

>

> It looks like I will be urged to demand prooflinks soon. =)

>

> The previous behavior was useful for development, so if I wanted to

> increase

> participation and quality of the code, I'd try to satisfy as much

> conflicting

> interests as possible.

>

> Right now I don't really see where is the conflict. Well, now that I think

> about

> it - I can revert to previous behavior myself, but it will take more time

> to

> investigate what was done, so if you can pinpoint me to the piece of code

> that

> needs to be brought back it will save all of us a several hours of debates

> and

> free this time on something useful.

>

> > Nobody forces you now or has forced

> > you in the past, to run this additional step, right?

>

> I miss the context. Which step and why should I be forced?

> Right now I am forced to install doc toolchain just to run a quick

> integration test for which bootstrap was used. You're not providing

> any alternative for this scenario and forcing me to think that I am

> developing SCons wrong and SCons was not meant to be developed

> this way. Sorry for the tone, I don't want to offend anyone, I type this

> in a hurry and have to apply critical logic to outline all arguments as

> quickly as possible.

>

> > Or is it your understanding that every developer is required to run the

> full

> > build scenario?

>

> No. It is your understanding. Sorry.

>

> The point of conflict that you don't accept is that bootstrap.py can be

> used

> and was used in the past as quick integration test. Please think about this

> and provide viable alternative to the person who is been robbed of his

> favorite

> hack. =)

>

> > And that's what we did, we made SCons better such that you don't have to

> > write MAN pages by hand anymore for example. As a consequence of this,

> you

> > simply don't get away anymore with what you did in the past: running only

> > half of the packaging test without the documentation.

>

> You are forcing people to a better change. If you want to make SCons better

> make the documentation build out of development loop cycle. This will save

> that precious bits of time that we all have at scarce.

>

> I am not saying not to build docs. I am saying - make it optional. Please

> hear me. bootstrap.py is not for building SCons. It is for testing what's

> in

> repository, and SCons SConstruct most of the time is the only comprehensive

> example you can test against.

>

> > But this is also a change to the better side and not meant to be against

> you

> > personally. It reduces the work load for the actual release managers

> because

> > errors in the documentation syntax are revealed much earlier in the

> > development process.

>

> Resurrect buildbots. There is a machine at speed.python.org that nobody

> cares about, so if you send a letter to Jessie, I don't see any problems in

> him to allow to use it for SCons. The machine can automatically build the

> docs and notify everybody about these errors. This will work. Forcing

> people

> to build docs to "reduce the work load" for release managers by spending

> much more developer's time on that task is the balance I can't agree with.

> Developer can become a release manager, but the opposite is not true.

>

> > And you can still get back to your old routine and workflow and help the

> > project even more and better than before, if you decide to take that

> little

> > step and install the libxml2 or lxml Python bindings.

>

> I am on Windows, and for some reason pip doesn't install any of them.

>

> > And if you decide to not install it, and simply skip the full packaging

> > build, that'll be fine with everyone too...and you can save even more of

> > your time and invest it in development itself.

>

> You're again forcing me skip running integration test and do the

> development the way you want. Do I look like demanding from you to skip

> building documentation altogether? Why the resistance? I'd personally

> resist only because I could be lazy to do the change. Is that it? =)

> _______________________________________________

> Scons-dev mailing list

> Scons-dev at scons.org

> http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://two.pairlist.net/pipermail/scons-dev/attachments/20140219/1a2c9eb7/attachment.htm>