SCons itself is written in a style to run with Python 1.5 something. The
Csound SConstruct file is not written (I hope) in a way idiomatic to later
versions, and if it is, I will fix it.



Original Message:
-----------------
From: Chris McCormick chris@mccormick.cx
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 10:55:53 +0800
To: csound-dev@eartha.mills.edu
Subject: [CSOUND-DEV:4302] RE: regarding SCons


A bit of annecdotal evidence that you may or may not disregard: last
time i had to build a package using scons it was extremely fussy aobut
what python version i had installed (i have several installed and this
confused like i've never seen a python program be confused before) - my
impression was that it is a system that makes things easier for
developers, but not so for end users.
My experiences as an end-user have been very good with ./configure, make,
make install, and it's the standard - i'd encourage developers to take
another shot at getting the compilation to work in that way as that's
what your end users are going to be used to. Good luck and great work,
anyway!

Regards,

Chris.

On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 04:40:02PM -0500, Anthony Kozar wrote:
> Well, _IF_ I understand everything correctly now, you do not actually need
> the GNU tools to simply build Csound from a source distribution that
already
> has a configure script, right?  (i.e. Still just uses make).  So, there is
> no extra dependency for the "casual" user who needs to recompile Csound
for
> some reason.
> 
> On the other hand, I _believe_ that when using SCons, it replaces make,
> right?  So, simply building Csound on say, Linux PPC, because there is no
> readily available binary now requires Python and SCons.
> 
> Python is not a problem on most platforms.  It is installed by default in
> newer versions of Mac OS X.  I suppose the same is true for Linux.  I have
> installed it a couple of times on Mac OS 9 and it is a breeze.
> 
> Regarding Dave's concerns, I agree that this adds a little bit of
complexity
> to the process.  Chasing dependencies is seldom fun.  However, with SCons,
> due to the _wonderful_ and _truly_ cross-platform efforts of the Python
> team, SCons compiled _and_ installed itself correctly in the Python folder
> on my Mac OS 9 system flawlessly (and from another hard drive partition,
> BTW).
> 
> And SCons is not even designed to support Mac OS 9 builds (yet)!  I have
> seldom seen so-called "cross-platform" software behave so well.
> 
> If it is that easy to use on the Mac, then I think that there is hope that
> other platforms will work smoothly as well. :)
> 
> Anthony Kozar
> anthony.kozar@utoledo.edu
> 
> 
> On 3/11/04 2:14 PM, gogins@pipeline.com etched in
> stone:
> 
> > SCons is 2 external dependencies for Csound (Python and SCons itself)
> > instead of 3 or 4 with autoconf, autoheader, automake, libtool, etc.,
runs
> > faster, builds objects faster, and is MUCH easier to understand. Also,
it
> > easily supports Microsoft Visual Studio.
> 
> On 3/12/04 12:37 PM, gogins@pipeline.com etched in
> stone:
> 
> 
> > I don't think one more dependency is a problem.
> > 
> > Original Message:
> > -----------------
> > From: Dave Phillips dlphilp@bright.net
> > Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 10:38:36 -0500
> > To: csound-dev@eartha.mills.edu
> > Subject: [CSOUND-DEV:4295] regarding SCons
> 
> > 1. SCons is not a regular component of mainstream Linux
> > distributions. Users desiring to build Csound from sources will need to
> > download and install it themselves.
> > 2. The SCons system is fairly simple for the normal user, but it
> > does mean one more build system to learn.
> > 3. Out of all the Linux sound and music applications I've built and
> > used (which means most of them) exactly one has used SCons (Juan
> > Linietsky's Cheesetracker). Csound would make two.
> 
---------------------------------
chris@mccormick.cx
http://www.mccormick.cx
http://www.sciencegirlrecords.com
---------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

I know little about SCons, but I'm willing to learn.  The reason I
thought SCons might be good for Csound4 is that it could cover cases
in which the GNU build system currently doesn't support.  My
willingness to study SCons does not constitute an endorsement of
it--just a willingness to look at it.

John