[Scons-users] [scons-users] Support for Python 3?

[LRN]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon Jun 11 16:18:23 EDT 2012, Gary Oberbrunner <garyo at
oberbrunner.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 3:52 PM, William Deegan <bill at 

> baddogconsulting.com>wrote:

>> Is building a local version of python 2.7 or 3.2 a barrier for 

>> people building software?

>> 

>> Last time I tried building 2.7 on my RHEL4 (yuck) machine I 

>> couldn't make

> 

> it happen due to a bunch of dependencies. (Sorry, don't remember 

> what they were -- this was a while ago.) Not to say it can't be 

> done, and maybe --without-XXX would have gotten me partway there. 

> But for instance I need PIL and numpy and various other stuff in 

> the same python I build with, so it did get kind of gnarly.

> 

> AT SOME POINT (not yet IMHO) we may be forced to fork, and put 2.x 

> support into bug fix mode, backporting things as and where 

> possible, and set (2.7 or 3.x) as the baseline for the new

> version. Right now, since I have a lot of 2.6 around, that would

> prevent me from being able to use that mythical new version.

> Projecting from myself (always dangerous of course), I'd imagine

> others are still in the same situation. From what folks have said

> on this thread, trying to keep both branches in feature-sync would

> become pretty difficult soon, so the later we do that fork (so the

> less we have to care about features on the "old" branch) the

> better. Balance that against what we lose by not supporting 3.x and

> we'll probably get to a tipping point sometime this year or next I

> guess.


Forking is the right thing to do.

It doesn't seem fair to me that people expect to be able to upgrade to
a new, shiny, just-released version of SCons, but keep Python 2.x
(where x is < 2.7) indefinitely.
The fact that some people have over 9000 SConscript files and machines
running SCons probably means that the version of SCons they are using
works for them just fine, so maybe they should keep using it.
Bugfixes should be enough for these ... people.

If interaction with some 2.x-only Python packages is required, there
should be a way to do so by using a different python version. The
difficulty of creating a bridge between that version and the one that
SCons is running under depends on the complexity of said interaction.
So, in some cases people will be able to upgrade Python and SCons, and
still keep using old Python packages.

For reference:
python 2.4 - 2004 (8 years old)
python 2.5 - 2006 (6 years old)
python 2.6 - 2008 (4 years old)
python 2.7 - 2010 (2 years old)

scons 2.1.0 - 2011 (1 year old)
scons 2.0.1 - 2010 (2 years old)
scons 1.3.0 - 2010 (2 years old)
scons 1.2.0 - 2009 (3 years old)
scons 1.1.0 - 2008 (4 years old)
scons 1.0.1 - 2008 (4 years old)
scons 1.0.0 - XXX (YYY years old)
scons 0.98 - 2008 (4 years old)
scons 0.97 - 2007 (5 years old)
scons 0.96 - 2004 (7 years old)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJP6fgiAAoJEOs4Jb6SI2Cw9gwH/2iKUasuti7X1J0HwDZTyzzq
7Tq3uE50QomuqtqrGg7sqNci/Av23ZPylDDzSJBX3kIsWGgRJDqaKIcqzh69GV4I
i5u/erxK6NzDnZA1ycNPQRT1zLxCXZse4yw9Bl2PgSaG0bo36TyCiYbqsUQw0hce
sxiyDotmn3i8GyhXXK+IF80d4sqfs39yAuOxyQ0NOJzVB5liu+NhwUXEW6+/xvPc
njcduuus6Ozip9J3hhq7WZOBwWfwEmVe4GFaHcEvaWlPLbv38QIA6RdxDqLfrrDO
GPDYvcSe4RXEvkJpCYKpMKOqz8xD65xZsDR1yxKQyOQMeRnpqO3FWU15Cr/B4kQ=
=vJ75
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----