1 18:53:02 * stevenknight (n=stevenkn@72.14.224.1) has joined #scons
2 19:01:03 <stevenknight> good evening, anyone else here for bugs?
3 19:01:08 <GregNoel> Warning: The Internet connection in this condo is in the middle of the living room, so rugrats are in play, Action Heros are on the TV, relatives and food are scattered all over, and multiple distractions are, er, distracting.
4 19:01:26 <garyo-home> Hi guys, I'm here.
5 19:01:44 <GregNoel> Are you there, Bill?
6 19:02:01 <garyo-home> Greg: welcome back!
7 19:02:26 <GregNoel> Well, I'm only sorta back, but I'll try to hang in there.
8 19:02:31 * garyo-home wonders if this is how you do the IRC italic thing
9 19:02:36 * garyo-home realizes it is.
10 19:03:10 <GregNoel> What italic thing?
11 19:03:28 <stevenknight> i bet garyo's IRC client display /me messages in italics...?
12 19:03:34 <garyo-home> yes.
13 19:03:41 <GregNoel> Ah.
14 19:04:01 <garyo-home> Seems to be how one writes about oneself in the third person.
15 19:04:18 * GregNoel is not so sure
16 19:04:18 <garyo-home> So, we're waiting for Bill?
17 19:04:31 <stevenknight> i'd say let's start and he can join
18 19:04:34 * garyo-home thinks that's funny
19 19:04:39 <garyo-home> ok
20 19:04:41 <GregNoel> ok
21 19:04:47 * stevenknight thinks we're all bozos on this bus
22 19:04:52 <garyo-home> We're starting with 2098 then?
23 19:05:05 <garyo-home> Or is it 2105?
24 19:05:19 <GregNoel> 2098 was only updated yesterday
25 19:05:32 <GregNoel> so I imagine we should start with 2105
26 19:05:30 <garyo-home> ok, 2105 then.
27 19:05:38 <stevenknight> 2105
28 19:06:00 <GregNoel> I am swayed by Gary's argument, but not convinced
29 19:06:03 <garyo-home> I"m ok with doc for 1.0, but I think it ought to be made to work someday.
30 19:06:23 <GregNoel> So maybe you should take it?
31 19:06:54 <garyo-home> OK, give it to me, I'll doc it for now and reassign as 1.x or 2.0 afterward.
32 19:06:59 <GregNoel> done
33 19:07:03 <stevenknight> done
34 19:07:31 <garyo-home> 2106: 1.0.x, p3, steven?
35 19:07:36 <stevenknight> works for me
36 19:07:44 <GregNoel> done
37 19:07:53 <garyo-home> 2107?
38 19:08:28 <stevenknight> 2107: agree w/Greg that we need a comprehensive solution
39 19:08:31 <garyo-home> I think Install as is should copy the source, but there should be a new way to do a real install.
40 19:08:41 <stevenknight> define "real install?"
41 19:08:53 <GregNoel> I don't know how to get there from here
42 19:08:54 <stevenknight> you mean like a package install?
43 19:09:00 <garyo-home> real = like the BSD install command that takes mode/owner/group.
44 19:09:08 <stevenknight> ah
45 19:09:20 <stevenknight> why not do that with additional args to the current Install()?
46 19:09:26 <GregNoel> Configure makes the same distinction
47 19:09:42 <garyo-home> Steven: I'd be OK w/ that.
48 19:10:07 <stevenknight> I think it's already confusing enough to a lot of people that our Install() is modeled after the BSD command
49 19:10:17 <garyo-home> Not sure if it's a + or - that those args could be set in the env though.
50 19:10:35 <stevenknight> instead of something that means "make this part of the installation items for this package" like you have in a RPM or Deb linux distribution
51 19:11:04 <garyo-home> Right; we should check Maciej's stuff, I'm pretty sure he solves this.
52 19:11:05 <GregNoel> Maybe we could split off InstallData/InstallExec?
53 19:11:21 <stevenknight> good point re: Maciej
54 19:11:26 <garyo-home> Greg: there should be a layer in between, but that's the right idea.
55 19:11:27 <stevenknight> and the need for Install{Data,Exec}
56 19:11:49 <GregNoel> Maciej added the install prefix but that would kill anyone who used it for a copy
57 19:12:03 <stevenknight> how about i take this one
58 19:12:14 <GregNoel> when?
59 19:12:18 <garyo-home> OK w/ me. Research or ???
60 19:12:23 <stevenknight> i've been pretty sure integrating Maciej's stuff would fall to me anyway
61 19:12:42 <stevenknight> 1.x at the earliest, but no later than 2.x i'd think
62 19:12:44 <GregNoel> 1.x p4?
63 19:12:49 <garyo-home> So 1.x p3/p4?
64 19:12:52 <stevenknight> yeah, that sounds about right
65 19:12:57 <stevenknight> 1.x p4
66 19:12:59 <GregNoel> done
67 19:13:12 <garyo-home> 2108: trivial
68 19:13:17 <GregNoel> and consensus
69 19:13:20 <stevenknight> yes
70 19:13:21 <stevenknight> done
71 19:13:29 <garyo-home> 2109, what is im_func?
72 19:13:49 <GregNoel> dunno
73 19:13:57 <garyo-home> Anyway looks like consensus is 1.0.x p2 Benoit?
74 19:14:00 <stevenknight> it's an attribute on one of the Python data structures that refers the actual code function object
75 19:14:18 <GregNoel> Ah, yes, a 2.5 feature
76 19:14:33 <stevenknight> trying to get the code function object (which has the compiled byte code) to calculate the signature is pretty involved
77 19:14:47 <GregNoel> so we need a backward-compatible shim?
78 19:14:59 <garyo-home> It looks like a string action though, in the bug report.
79 19:15:04 <stevenknight> you have to thread your way through different attributes depending on whether it's a function, or a callable object, and a couple of other non-obvious cases
80 19:15:22 <GregNoel> Benoit then
81 19:15:27 <stevenknight> i think it just needs a little triage to isolate the difference in the reporter's Python version
82 19:15:29 <garyo-home> ok w/ me
83 19:15:42 <stevenknight> yeah 1.0.x p2 Benoit
84 19:15:47 <GregNoel> done
85 19:16:05 <GregNoel> 2110
86 19:16:11 <garyo-home> 2110: consensus 1.x p3 steven, unless tricky?
87 19:16:11 <stevenknight> 1.x p3 me
88 19:16:17 <GregNoel> done
89 19:16:17 <stevenknight> yes
90 19:16:30 <garyo-home> 2111: dup of 2051
91 19:16:39 <GregNoel> ok
92 19:16:55 <stevenknight> done
93 19:17:16 <garyo-home> 2112: consensus?
94 19:17:23 <GregNoel> ok, who?
95 19:17:21 <stevenknight> 2112: how have we survived this long with a summary line that violates the spec?
96 19:17:37 <GregNoel> Short entries?
97 19:17:42 <stevenknight> must be
98 19:17:45 <stevenknight> i'll take it
99 19:17:54 <GregNoel> ok, done
100 19:17:57 <garyo-home> Steven, good question. Maybe someone's rpmbuild is less forgiving
101 19:18:38 <garyo-home> 2113: consensus 1.x p3? Could be earlier, it's likely to be easy
102 19:19:15 <stevenknight> 2113: how about 1.0.x p4 then?
103 19:19:23 <garyo-home> fine w /me.
104 19:19:41 <GregNoel> I'm easy
105 19:19:55 <garyo-home> OK, good progress!
106 19:19:58 <stevenknight> ok, done
107 19:20:09 <stevenknight> oh, wait -- who?
108 19:20:26 <garyo-home> I could do it if you want.
109 19:20:34 <stevenknight> works for me
110 19:20:52 <garyo-home> ok.
111 19:20:59 <stevenknight> on to 2007 q1?
112 19:21:14 <garyo-home> I'm ready, looks like it starts w/ 1525.
113 19:21:35 <garyo-home> ... which is clearly toolchain.
114 19:21:37 <GregNoel> still shuffling, not as easy as on my desktop
115 19:21:40 <stevenknight> 1525: consensus future+toolchain
116 19:21:45 <stevenknight> devil's advocate, though:
117 19:22:08 <stevenknight> it would actually be pretty trivial to just add some variables for these instead of hard-coding them in Platform/__init__.py
118 19:22:28 <stevenknight> if the toolchain refactoring is going to take a while, is it worth doing something like that to help people in the meantime?
119 19:22:46 <garyo-home> Yes, that's actually how I got interested in that.
120 19:22:48 <stevenknight> or does that run the risk of boxing us into Yet Another feature that we'll have to maintain backwards compatibility for?
121 19:22:58 <GregNoel> hard choice
122 19:22:59 <garyo-home> Started looking at how to expose those vars.
123 19:23:38 <garyo-home> But you're right, given actual hours to be spent, toolchain refactor is going to take a while.
124 19:23:43 <GregNoel> I'd prefer to know where we're going before making short-term mods
125 19:24:17 <garyo-home> Greg: that's true for sure. But how long will even the design part take?
126 19:24:42 <garyo-home> I think once 1.0 is out we should spend some serious time on it. Not that I have any :-)
127 19:24:50 <stevenknight> okay, so for this bug, let's leave it future+toolchain
128 19:24:51 <GregNoel> I've got a few updates at home, but design is always a long process
129 19:25:10 <GregNoel> OK, and if we can factor some out short-term, we'll do it.
130 19:25:19 <stevenknight> with a notation to the effect that one early subtask in that should be nailing down the configurability interface
131 19:25:28 <stevenknight> (i.e. variable names)
132 19:25:37 <GregNoel> (Actually, toolchain has been 2.x p4 I think.)
133 19:25:43 <stevenknight> and retrofit that part to the existing code base if practical
134 19:25:43 <garyo-home> Right, or maybe a simple functional interface, whatever.
135 19:25:52 <garyo-home> yes.
136 19:25:53 <GregNoel> works for me
137 19:25:56 <stevenknight> done
138 19:26:30 <stevenknight> 1538: fixed by Gary?
139 19:26:34 <garyo-home> yes.
140 19:26:39 <stevenknight> done
141 19:26:57 <GregNoel> Any patch for 1546?
142 19:27:01 <garyo-home> 1546, Ada?
143 19:27:47 <garyo-home> No idea, let's mark it 2.x until other Ada requests come in or people vote for it.
144 19:27:54 <stevenknight> ++
145 19:28:00 <GregNoel> ++
146 19:28:10 <GregNoel> p3?
147 19:28:19 <garyo-home> Sure.
148 19:28:29 <GregNoel> done
149 19:28:38 <garyo-home> 1553: consensus=worksforme
150 19:28:43 <stevenknight> done
151 19:28:58 <stevenknight> 1558: ???
152 19:29:21 <garyo-home> Would be cool, but does anyone understand pdb?
153 19:29:25 <GregNoel> Not me
154 19:29:34 <stevenknight> just a smidge
155 19:29:50 <stevenknight> only enough to put in place what we currently have
156 19:29:58 <garyo-home> I think maybe 1.x or 2.0 p4.
157 19:30:02 <stevenknight> ...and look at how well *that's* turned out... :-)
158 19:30:05 <garyo-home> :-)
159 19:30:27 <garyo-home> Better debugging in general would be nice
160 19:30:34 <GregNoel> agreed
161 19:30:42 <stevenknight> how about p3? i'm swayed by your argument in the spreadsheet about making it easier to hack scons
162 19:31:09 <garyo-home> Well, I'd use it if it were there, for sure.
163 19:31:20 <garyo-home> So p3 is OK w/ me.
164 19:31:20 <GregNoel> 2.x p3, then?
165 19:31:43 <stevenknight> 1.x p3, i'd rather at least consider it sooner rather than later?
166 19:31:52 <garyo-home> OK. If anyone with pdb knowledge turns up, we ask them to work on it.
167 19:31:55 <GregNoel> Hmmmm... 1.x p4.
168 19:32:04 <stevenknight> i can go with that
169 19:32:06 <garyo-home> ok compromise.
170 19:32:09 <GregNoel> done
171 19:32:11 <stevenknight> done
172 19:32:32 <GregNoel> How's Nathan?
173 19:32:39 <stevenknight> 1567: awol, and i haven't followed up
174 19:32:58 <garyo-home> 1567: no sooner than 2.x unless Nathan is found.
175 19:33:10 <GregNoel> agreed
176 19:33:19 <stevenknight> 2.x, p...3?
177 19:33:25 <GregNoel> yes
178 19:33:28 <garyo-home> And besides it'd have to be customized for each distro, yuck.
179 19:33:35 <garyo-home> 2.x p3 ok.
180 19:33:40 <stevenknight> done
181 19:33:40 <GregNoel> but we need to mark it somehow so that
182 19:33:56 <GregNoel> we can find it again if Nathan shows
183 19:34:18 <garyo-home> hmm, gsoc keyword?
184 19:34:31 <GregNoel> ok, would work
185 19:35:19 <garyo-home> Not sure what we can do about 1570; no testcase.
186 19:35:29 <stevenknight> i'm okay with closing it out
187 19:35:52 <stevenknight> if it's important enough someone else will open up another issue with a testcase
188 19:35:54 <garyo-home> agree.
189 19:36:02 <GregNoel> concur
190 19:36:23 <stevenknight> 1571: consensus 2.x p3
191 19:36:23 <stevenknight> who?
192 19:36:40 <stevenknight> or we don't need to assign 2.x -- i keep forgetting
193 19:36:48 <garyo-home> Let's not.
194 19:36:53 <GregNoel> noone for now
195 19:37:02 <stevenknight> done
196 19:37:13 <stevenknight> 1574: research, VisualStudio, me
197 19:37:18 <GregNoel> done
198 19:37:31 <stevenknight> 1575: 1.x p3 jim
199 19:37:43 <garyo-home> ok
200 19:37:50 <GregNoel> done
201 19:38:23 <garyo-home> 1577: Greg, are you sure about .sconsign and test output?
202 19:38:26 * GregNoel has a rugrat on his head and other minor distractions....
203 19:38:43 <stevenknight> i hear rugrats are good eatin'
204 19:39:13 <garyo-home> it's quiet here on the right coast
205 19:39:46 <stevenknight> 1577: the Configure stuff has to store the result somewhere
206 19:39:54 <GregNoel> Ok, where in the .sconsign is it kept?
207 19:39:58 <stevenknight> when you re-run it will tell you things like "... yes (cached)"
208 19:40:26 <stevenknight> i'm not sure off the top of my head, that code makes my head hurt when I look at it
209 19:40:28 <garyo-home> I don't understand how it works, but I have tests that say .... "v1.03" (cached)
210 19:40:39 <garyo-home> where that v1.03 was output from a config-compiled binary.
211 19:40:57 <GregNoel> It seems to cache positive/negative results, but it doesn't capture command output, for example
212 19:41:52 * GregNoel now has a _naked_ rugrat crawling on his head....
213 19:41:55 <stevenknight> gah. check this out from SConf.py:
214 19:42:13 <stevenknight> # Because we take responsibility here for writing out our
215 19:42:13 <stevenknight> # own .sconsign info (see SConfBuildTask.execute(), above),
216 19:42:13 <stevenknight> # we override the store_info() method with a null place-holder
217 19:42:13 <stevenknight> # so we really control how it gets written.
218 19:42:13 <stevenknight> # Because we take responsibility here for writing out our
219 19:42:14 <stevenknight> # own .sconsign info (see SConfBuildTask.execute(), above),
220 19:42:16 <stevenknight> # we override the store_info() method with a null place-holder
221 19:42:18 <stevenknight> # so we really control how it gets written.
222 19:42:25 <stevenknight> oops, sorry for the dup, didn't realize it was already in my buffer
223 19:42:38 <GregNoel> happens to all of us
224 19:42:53 <stevenknight> that module does a lot of "clever" stuff like that
225 19:42:58 <garyo-home> I knew there had to be some bad magic there.
226 19:43:05 <stevenknight> kind of impressive, actually, but it makes things kinda fragile
227 19:43:07 <GregNoel> so something special is saved, but what, exactly?
228 19:43:11 <garyo-home> Cause it does work for me on a daily basis.
229 19:43:49 <GregNoel> The sconsign command doesn't slow it (which may not be a surprise)
230 19:43:49 <stevenknight> Here's its custom build info class:
231 19:43:51 <stevenknight> class SConfBuildInfo(SCons.Node.FS.FileBuildInfo):
232 19:43:51 <stevenknight> """
233 19:43:51 <stevenknight> Special build info for targets of configure tests. Additional members
234 19:43:51 <stevenknight> are result (did the builder succeed last time?) and string, which
235 19:43:51 <stevenknight> contains messages of the original build phase.
236 19:43:52 <stevenknight> """
237 19:43:56 <stevenknight> result = None # -> 0/None -> no error, != 0 error
238 19:43:58 <stevenknight> string = None # the stdout / stderr output when building the target
239 19:44:00 <stevenknight> def set_build_result(self, result, string):
240 19:44:02 <stevenknight> self.result = result
241 19:44:04 <stevenknight> self.string = string
242 19:44:50 <stevenknight> so there's a little magic at work
243 19:44:59 <GregNoel> Major magic
244 19:45:06 <stevenknight> yeah, sconsign doesn't know anything about all this
245 19:45:09 <stevenknight> it should
246 19:45:19 <stevenknight> i sense a new issue being opened...
247 19:45:27 <GregNoel> you bet
248 19:45:58 <garyo-home> But that makes me wonder what this bug is about. It should work as is.
249 19:46:00 <stevenknight> working it
250 19:47:28 <garyo-home> I bet Configure isn't overriding the main signature method hard enough.
251 19:48:09 <stevenknight> it dates back to 0.96.95, might have been fixed since then
252 19:48:29 <stevenknight> sounds like this needs research
253 19:48:48 <GregNoel> OK, you?
254 19:49:13 <stevenknight> ok
255 19:49:23 <garyo-home> I just tried it, it works for me on the trunk.
256 19:49:23 <stevenknight> i can go with gary's classification: 1.x, p3, me
257 19:49:33 <GregNoel> done
258 19:49:40 <stevenknight> or do we just call it WORKSFORME and let it get re-opened if necessary?
259 19:50:03 <GregNoel> hmmm..... Yes, I like that better
260 19:50:08 <GregNoel> close issues if we can
261 19:50:16 <garyo-home> Well, it works for *me*, on Ubuntu, python2.5. But if you guys trust me that much... :-)
262 19:50:25 <stevenknight> oh, but we do!
263 19:50:36 <GregNoel> Gary, will you close it with that comment? Tell him to reopen it if it's still a problem.
264 19:50:46 <garyo-home> OK.
265 19:50:47 <stevenknight> done
266 19:50:58 <stevenknight> 1580:
267 19:51:16 <stevenknight> 1.x p3 rob
268 19:51:16 <GregNoel> rob
269 19:51:25 <GregNoel> works for me
270 19:51:44 <stevenknight> 1597: 1.x p3 bill
271 19:52:25 <GregNoel> yes, works; thanks, Bill, for volunteering
272 19:52:21 <stevenknight> 1604: 1.x p4 greg
273 19:52:51 <GregNoel> 1604, yes, add it to my list
274 19:53:47 <stevenknight> 1545: 1.x p2 greg?
275 19:54:04 <GregNoel> p2? Hmmm, ok
276 19:54:28 <garyo-home> I'd recommend p3 but p2 is ok
277 19:54:39 <stevenknight> i was going from the spreadsheet, i'm okay with p3
278 19:55:00 <GregNoel> It's not a hard job, but finding all the places will take some shaking out.
279 19:55:05 <stevenknight> yes
280 19:55:50 <GregNoel> ok, I'm good with p2
281 19:56:10 <GregNoel> I think that ends this spreadsheet and I need to go
282 19:56:19 <garyo-home> Good work all!
283 19:56:34 <stevenknight> very good, thanks
284 19:56:35 <garyo-home> Can you guys do next wk at the same time?
285 19:56:37 <GregNoel> see you guys next week? What time?
286 19:56:52 <stevenknight> good for me
287 19:56:56 <GregNoel> This time would be better for me (19h00)
288 19:57:03 <stevenknight> okay, let's go with it
289 19:57:14 <stevenknight> hmm, i was hoping David would make it too
290 19:57:24 <stevenknight> oh, well, we made good progress
291 19:57:26 <garyo-home> This worked well for me. See you then! Maybe David next week?
292 19:57:31 <GregNoel> yes
293 19:57:42 <stevenknight> all right, next week, same bat time, same bat station
294 19:57:50 <GregNoel> OK, I've got the logs, so I'll update that tommorrow
295 19:57:55 <garyo-home> great. Who's entering the data into tigris?
296 19:58:05 <GregNoel> You guys
297 19:58:14 <garyo-home> OK, I did it last time & it was easy.
298 19:58:16 <stevenknight> you did it last week, i'll take it this week?
299 19:58:24 <garyo-home> OK, your turn then.
300 19:58:32 <garyo-home> thanks!
301 19:58:41 * GregNoel attacked by rugrats, gotta go!
302 19:58:43 <stevenknight> 'night all
