[Scons-users] Request for comment: configuration extension design

[Damien]

What you're describing is close to what we actually do.  We overwrite 
SCons' config for compilers, linkers and flags, and then put in the ones 
we want into specific config files that tweak the whole environment.  It 
does something of a disservice to all the work that goes into SCons, but 
we do debug, release and debugrelease builds in 32 & 64 bit across three 
operating systems with two compilers per OS, using C++, C and Fortran 
code and three sets of third-party binaries.  It's the only way we can 
make it work reliably.  It was a lot of work to set up, but now it's 
bulletproof.

We don't use custom Builders, and maybe we should, I like what you 
propose there.  I like the Abstract flags proposal too.

Damien


On 29/06/2012 1:05 AM, Evan Driscoll wrote:

> This is a followup to an earlier discussion about extending the configure

> context to make it easier to specify libraries and whatnot.

>

> I decided that I should probably write up what I plan to do so that *I* know

> what I'm doing, and I figured I'd circulate it in case anyone has any

> comments/questions/complaints/etc.  I'm writing it because *I* want it, but of

> course it'd be great if other people find it useful as well.

>

> I think I have at least some idea about how to do all of the implemenentation

> things.

>

> It's kind of long so I totally understand if you don't take a look. That's

> also why I attached it.

>

> Evan Driscoll

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> Scons-users mailing list

> Scons-users at scons.org

> http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://four.pairlist.net/pipermail/scons-users/attachments/20120629/365dfb6f/attachment.htm>