Re: Re: [scons-devel] auto-configuration plans

"David Snopek" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.tools.aap.devel
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Aschwin Marsman said:
>> > Currently there is no API.  At least, I could not find it.  Since the
>> > use of the SConf module is quite SCons-specific I already suggested to
>> > make an interface at a lower level.  That avoids modifying parts of
>> > SCons that use the SConf module.  And makes it easier to define an
>> > interface that is not SCons-specific.
>>
>> There *is* the current SCons API (documented in the SCons manpage). I
>> just
>> meant that this API shouldn't change.
>
> You can always implement this interface using the lower level interface
> that Bram is looking for, this lower level interface can then both be
> used by SCons (or SConf) and A-A-P without having to use other parts
> of either SCons (or SConf) or A-A-P. It needs to be self containd.

This is not something that I think would benefit SCons at all.  I thought
that we were coming up with a common API that would be used by the
configure tests.  Then the implementation of the API could either use
A-A-P, SCons, or someother structures.  When the configure tests run under
SCons, they NEED to use SCons structures.  If this were not the case, then
many of my existing configure tests wouldn't work.  For example, I have
configure tests that use my non-standard builders via TryAction.  I also
have two configure tests for libltdl that are dependant on first
bootstrapping the library then linking with it and doing the test (very
dependant on the SCons build system).  Obviously, I never thought these
configure tests would be portable.  But they require that the underlying
implementation of SConf be based on SCons.

Like I said many times before, the most we can hope to share is a battery
of configure tests.  These are just python functions that expect to have
access to a specific API given to them as a "context" object.  Under
A-A-P, this context object would be connected to the A-A-P build system. 
If you insist on comming up with a "standalone" implementation that would
be a third, totally different thing.

Thank you.
  -- David Snopek

Satellite Computing Solutions, LLC


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including
Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now.
Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET.
http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.