[Scons-users] Provide default Import to SConscript

Hua Yanghao huayanghao at gmail.com
Wed Feb 21 16:36:11 EST 2018


Thanks Bill.

Will do and maybe we can somehow combine the best of Parts and the
"kbuild" concepts and make it into scons.
So developer can really start a project in less than 5 lines of code
for the build system and have very good scalability for the future as
well.

SCons is really already good for me but I do see quite some developers
opt for Make for small project (which gradually grow big and no longer
easy to maintain, with mysterious issues here and there, very
difficult to debug, runs in this shell but not that shell, or runs in
bash but not bash-in-screen ... ). I solved this problem with the
kbuild-like configuration system and pulled back a few developers to
use SCons ;-)

Best Regards,
Yanghao

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:35 PM, Bill Deegan <bill at baddogconsulting.com> wrote:
> Yangao,
>
> Please keep us up to date with your efforts.
> Take a look at our developer guide, any such would need docs and tests to be
> considered for inclusion to SCons, and any major changes would have to have
> support of the community.
>
> I don't have any time or energy to contribute, I'm working on some core
> SCons logic that requires all the time I have available.
>
> -Bill
> SCons Project Co-Manager
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 3:22 PM, Bill Deegan <bill at baddogconsulting.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Hua Yanghao <huayanghao at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Bill,
>>>
>>> > SCons is meant to be a python based make replacement.
>>>
>>> This is actually very much not true.
>>
>>
>> From the scons.or website:
>> "SCons is an Open Source software construction tool—that is, a
>> next-generation build tool. Think of SCons as an improved, cross-platform
>> substitute for the classic Make utility with integrated functionality
>> similar to autoconf/automake and compiler caches such as ccache. In short,
>> SCons is an easier, more reliable and faster way to build software."
>>
>>>
>>> Make is really just dispatching
>>> commands/keeping track of dependencies and timestamps ... it does not
>>> provide any Scons Tools libraries etc. In my view somehow scons is
>>> stuck in the middle of "Make" and a comprehensive build framework like
>>> "Kbuild", more accurate, yet more difficult compared to pure Make for
>>> small things, and yet again more difficult compared to full-fledged
>>> build system due to the lack of a common build framework.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> How much time are you willing to commit to development and ongoing support
>> of your changes?
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > What your suggesting is probably more along the lines of Parts? (Jason)
>>> > (Which is build on top of SCons).
>>>
>>> I think I saw parts project quite some time ago on company intranet
>>> ... , but wasn't really what I wanted. I want a single super repo for
>>> everything a project requires, as compared to be able to build
>>> independent small things and then stitch them together. Kbuild is
>>> really what I wanted, kbuild would be perfect if it is build on top of
>>> python instead of those eye-hurting shell script ... so  I setup and
>>> build a extremely similar (even better in many ways such as
>>> inter-configuration dependencies) thing in python/scons (only took a
>>> few days for the very first working version).
>>>
>>> > So if I understand properly, you want to add an alternative version of
>>> > SConscript where the files would be presented and entirely different
>>> > set of
>>> > globals to work with?
>>>
>>> Yes, exactly. to bring SConscript from stone-age to industrial-age,
>>> and yet still allow you to use chisel if you insist ... :)
>>
>>
>> That's nice. Good luck with your efforts.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scons-users mailing list
> Scons-users at scons.org
> https://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users
>


More information about the Scons-users mailing list