Please note:The SCons wiki is in read-only mode due to ongoing spam/DoS issues. Also, new account creation is currently disabled. We are looking into alternative wiki hosts.
   1 17:03:08 <jason_at_intel>	so greg that sample for the tar file builder
   2 17:03:46 <jason_at_intel>	are you suggesting that this should be special cased per builder?
   3 17:04:05 <jason_at_intel>	given that you have a special node wrapper in it
   4 17:04:31 <jason_at_intel>	that has special knowledge of the SCon internals
   5 17:05:35 <GregNoel>	I need to write up my notes on that; it requires some modifications to the Node class to create a special proxy, as well as some minor tweaks to the Taskmaster to deal with the proxy correctly.
   6 17:06:03 <jason_at_intel>	ahh ok... so we should fix up some stuff in SCons first then
   7 17:05:56 <GregNoel>	are we all here and ready to go?
   8 17:05:59 <Garyo>	Shall we start in?  Are we waiting for anyone else?
   9 17:06:03 <Garyo>	:-)
  10 17:06:28 <sgk>	i'd say let's go...
  11 17:06:32 <GregNoel>	2674 consensus invalid
  12 17:06:32 <GregNoel>	2677 consensus research p1 Steven
  13 17:06:32 <GregNoel>	2678 consensus invalid
  14 17:06:32 <GregNoel>	2679 consensus 3.x p3 (no owner required)
  15 17:06:32 <GregNoel>	2680 needs priority, but otherwise consensus
  16 17:07:02 <jason_at_intel>	wow that was fast :-)
  17 17:07:35 <sgk>	2680:  p3?  just by default?
  18 17:07:52 <GregNoel>	p3 or p4, I think.  I don't really care which.
  19 17:08:26 <Garyo>	p3 seems fine to me (revisit in 3 weeks)
  20 17:08:39 <GregNoel>	six weeks
  21 17:08:47 <GregNoel>	(three meetings)
  22 17:08:55 <Garyo>	sorry, right you are
  23 17:08:46 <sgk>	p3, get feedback to the OP a little sooner than p4
  24 17:08:57 <bdbaddog>	6wks +1
  25 17:08:59 <GregNoel>	p3 going once
  26 17:09:05 <jason_at_intel>	+1
  27 17:09:11 <GregNoel>	done
  28 17:09:14 <GregNoel>	2681 We really should have installable packages for all three major platforms
  29 17:09:37 <sgk>	yeah
  30 17:10:03 <Garyo>	If it comes to it, some platforms can be delayed slightly -- the new all-in-one Windows installer will only be buildable on Windows for instance (at least at first)
  31 17:10:10 <Garyo>	(not in 2.1)
  32 17:10:14 <jason_at_intel>	I would agree.. but i don't think package has long term viability outside open source only usage
  33 17:10:32 <Garyo>	Jason: don't understand?
  34 17:10:59 <jason_at_intel>	Package() does not have what is needed to make a real enterprise installer
  35 17:11:17 <Garyo>	Ah, I see.  You mean to package SCons itself.
  36 17:11:43 <jason_at_intel>	ya..
  37 17:11:52 <jason_at_intel>	well if we are to eat our own dog food that is
  38 17:11:41 <Garyo>	I thought this guy was proposing a separate script.
  39 17:12:35 <sgk>	we're a little ways from being able to dogfood something like this, agreed
  40 17:12:37 <Garyo>	I think Package() has all the low-level bits, but of course will need work on high-level stuff. But that's irrelevant here.
  41 17:12:42 <sgk>	but it's probably a step towards making things better
  42 17:13:08 <jason_at_intel>	but it would be nice to have a native option to install SCons other than "setup.py install"
  43 17:13:42 <Garyo>	Of course.  We already have that for Windows, and will have a better option soon.  And this guy's script gives us the "right thing" for Mac.  All that's left is rpm/apt.
  44 17:14:04 <jason_at_intel>	it is a good start
  45 17:14:24 <sgk>	so ...  2.2?
  46 17:14:38 <GregNoel>	sure; what priority?
  47 17:14:40 <Garyo>	All I'm saying is, rather than trying to do all the release builds on Mac, I'd be OK with doing the releases as we do now, but then notifying someone (like Richard) that it's time to do a Mac pkg.
  48 17:14:42 <bdbaddog>	is new win installer 2.2 also?
  49 17:15:03 <Garyo>	Hi Bill -- I think he's been keeping it up with trunk, so 2.2 seems good to me.
  50 17:15:10 <sgk>	p3?  or p2 because it's an actual patch and it's rude to make the OP wait?
  51 17:15:58 <Garyo>	I guess we could integrate his scripts into the bin/ dir, and ask him to start using them whenever he's ready.  Even for 2.1.
  52 17:16:49 <Garyo>	(Then he or someone would upload his packages to SF of course)
  53 17:17:12 <bdbaddog>	I have mac will travel.. so can build mac pkgs'
  54 17:17:18 <Garyo>	Ditto.
  55 17:17:14 <GregNoel>	Should we add some issues to have us start using Package() to create our own packages?
  56 17:17:42 <sgk>	GregNoel:  good idea
  57 17:17:42 <Garyo>	Greg: that would help whip it into shape for sure!  3.x p3?
  58 17:18:19 <Garyo>	Anyway, I say for this issue let's go with 2.1 p2 just to check in his scripts.
  59 17:18:30 <GregNoel>	worksforme
  60 17:18:41 <Garyo>	But not commit to producing a pkg for 2.1 unless it is as easy as we hope
  61 17:18:51 <sgk>	+1
  62 17:18:56 <GregNoel>	agree
  63 17:19:07 <GregNoel>	Assign to Steven?
  64 17:19:38 <sgk>	sure
  65 17:19:42 <GregNoel>	done
  66 17:19:45 <GregNoel>	2682 consensus 2.1 p2 Dirk (unless there's a violent objection)
  67 17:19:45 <GregNoel>	2683 consensus 2.x p3 Bill
  68 17:19:45 <GregNoel>	2684
  69 17:20:22 <Garyo>	2683: Bill, I suggest using a VM to set up mingw.  You can't do it on a machine with cygwin.  Just FYI.
  70 17:21:17 <bdbaddog>	garyo: Thanks!
  71 17:20:40 <sgk>	2684:  research p3 sk  ?
  72 17:20:57 <GregNoel>	Sounds fair.
  73 17:20:58 <Garyo>	agreed.
  74 17:21:06 <jason_at_intel>	+1
  75 17:21:17 <GregNoel>	done
  76 17:21:20 <GregNoel>	2686 consensus discuss in dev@scons; who shall lead discussion?
  77 17:21:52 <Garyo>	I can start it.
  78 17:22:18 <GregNoel>	Garyo, +1, thanks
  79 17:22:36 <GregNoel>	2687
  80 17:23:26 <Garyo>	Jason, can you track it down a little further?
  81 17:23:33 <Garyo>	See where it's going wrong?
  82 17:23:48 <jason_at_intel>	Sure... It will be a little bit as i have a lot on my plate
  83 17:24:05 <Garyo>	It's your itch to scratch :-) :-)
  84 17:24:04 <GregNoel>	I'm pretty sure the prefix matching is a part of optparse, and it requires the shortest prefix first.
  85 17:24:30 <jason_at_intel>	I thought you where going to redo this stuff
  86 17:24:46 <jason_at_intel>	ie from some dev board postings
  87 17:25:15 <Garyo>	I want to, but it's a big job and not top of my list.  Anyway, if it's a low-level parser issue that won't help.
  88 17:25:21 <jason_at_intel>	but ya... I can scratch it.. did not want to step on your toes
  89 17:25:26 <Garyo>	np
  90 17:25:43 <GregNoel>	milestone and priority?
  91 17:25:50 <jason_at_intel>	so i guess assign to me then p4
  92 17:25:53 <Garyo>	I put that behind toolchain and lots of other things (for me at least)
  93 17:26:14 <Garyo>	agree jason p4.  Research?
  94 17:26:20 <GregNoel>	yes
  95 17:26:31 <GregNoel>	done?
  96 17:26:34 <sgk>	done
  97 17:26:38 <GregNoel>	2688 Lots of comments, no suggestions....
  98 17:27:21 <Garyo>	Hmm.  How about 2.x p3?
  99 17:27:45 <Garyo>	(I think we need to keep the .bat too, for older Windows that couldn't run .py directly)
 100 17:28:15 <bdbaddog>	garyo: which win would that be?
 101 17:28:35 <Garyo>	I think XP couldn't.
 102 17:28:43 <Garyo>	And I think 2000 also.
 103 17:28:43 <sgk>	I
 104 17:29:15 <GregNoel>	sgk, II, too; anybody for III? {;-}
 105 17:29:42 <bdbaddog>	99% sure xp can.. 2k though perhaps not.
 106 17:29:23 <sgk>	re: the arguments, I've also turned up reference to a registry setting that controls what arguments get passed to an invoked .py
 107 17:29:48 <sgk>	but I don't know if it's across all Windows versions or not, so keeping the .bat file is safest
 108 17:29:55 *	jason_at_intel has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
 109 17:30:09 *	jason_at_intel (~chatzilla@84.sub-75-205-70.myvzw.com) has joined #SCONS
 110 17:30:25 <jason_at_intel>	ok back
 111 17:30:59 <jason_at_intel>	which one are we on?
 112 17:31:09 <Garyo>	still 2688
 113 17:31:20 <jason_at_intel>	thanks
 114 17:30:13 <Garyo>	I might be mistaken but I remember trying & failing a while ago, doing a lot of reading up on Windows Scripting Host. :-(
 115 17:30:30 <Garyo>	Anyway, setting %PATH% is a good idea no matter what.
 116 17:30:59 <sgk>	agreed
 117 17:31:45 <Garyo>	Steven, I'm afraid you know the setup.py logic best; you'll have to start this one.  I can clean up and test though.
 118 17:32:16 <sgk>	fair enough
 119 17:31:47 <jason_at_intel>	adding <pythoninstall>\script
 120 17:32:46 <jason_at_intel>	so all 2.4 versions seemed good with .py on windows
 121 17:33:09 <sgk>	jason_at_intel:  with all arguments being passed to the script?
 122 17:33:18 <jason_at_intel>	yes
 123 17:33:21 <Garyo>	... and what Windows version?
 124 17:33:39 <jason_at_intel>	NT line
 125 17:33:45 <Garyo>	wow, ok
 126 17:33:28 <jason_at_intel>	we have people here that tweak this
 127 17:33:50 <sgk>	so they set up the registry to pass the arguments, then
 128 17:33:57 <sgk>	that's not the default behavior
 129 17:34:04 <jason_at_intel>	registry?
 130 17:34:21 <jason_at_intel>	no they rename scons to scons.py
 131 17:34:34 <jason_at_intel>	so the PATHEXT will call it with out python
 132 17:35:09 <sgk>	@jason_at_intel:  http://www.lalitkapoor.com/blog/2008/12/21/python-wont-take-command-line-arguments-windows-vista/
 133 17:36:10 <jason_at_intel>	never seen this myself.. we use python scripts all the time as programs at work
 134 17:34:24 <Garyo>	Jason, maybe you & Steven can take that issue offline and show him what's needed?
 135 17:35:14 <jason_at_intel>	fair enought .. as long as Steve answers the e-mails
 136 17:35:19 <sgk>	:-)
 137 17:36:09 <sgk>	so we'll take it off line
 138 17:36:23 <jason_at_intel>	ok... will you start the e-mail?
 139 17:36:27 <sgk>	vanilla windows installs, or configured by your admins?
 140 17:36:39 <sgk>	(wait, I just said we'd take this off line...)
 141 17:36:42 <sgk>	onward
 142 17:36:13 <sgk>	i should own the issue?
 143 17:36:59 <GregNoel>	Er, it needs a milestone and priority, if not an owner...
 144 17:37:16 <sgk>	well, we have the other install-related issues 2.2, so how about
 145 17:37:18 <sgk>	2.2 p3 sk?
 146 17:37:44 <GregNoel>	worksforme
 147 17:37:40 <Garyo>	Install cleanup: theme for 2.2. :-)
 148 17:37:50 <Garyo>	I'll notify Lukas.
 149 17:37:59 <sgk>	cool
 150 17:38:03 <GregNoel>	done?
 151 17:38:18 <Garyo>	done
 152 17:38:22 <GregNoel>	1170 bypass, no substantive comments
 153 17:38:22 <GregNoel>	1176 bypass, no substantive comments
 154 17:38:22 <GregNoel>	1182 bypass, no substantive comments
 155 17:38:22 <GregNoel>	1406 Should we contact Russel to see if someone in the third-part crew can take it?
 156 17:38:49 <sgk>	GregNoel:  good idea
 157 17:38:54 <Garyo>	1406: that would be my recommendation too
 158 17:39:23 <GregNoel>	done
 159 17:39:26 <GregNoel>	1418 bypass, no substantive comments
 160 17:39:26 <GregNoel>	1708
 161 17:39:46 <jason_at_intel>	Looks like Steve needs some time
 162 17:39:47 <sgk>	research p2 sk
 163 17:40:03 <sgk>	time is definitely the precious commodity...
 164 17:40:14 <Garyo>	:-/
 165 17:40:24 <GregNoel>	You don't know the half of it.
 166 17:40:21 <jason_at_intel>	ahem
 167 17:40:53 <GregNoel>	OK, I'll adjust the priority
 168 17:40:46 <Garyo>	Well, we're all here & that's impressive.
 169 17:41:01 <GregNoel>	Garyo, concur
 170 17:41:09 <GregNoel>	done?
 171 17:41:18 <Garyo>	yes
 172 17:41:21 <GregNoel>	2249 bypass, no substantive comments
 173 17:41:21 <GregNoel>	2521 bypass, no substantive comments
 174 17:41:21 <GregNoel>	2575
 175 17:41:38 <jason_at_intel>	I think this needs to be taken offline
 176 17:41:40 <Garyo>	But wait, 2249 & 2521, any news from Bill?
 177 17:41:53 <GregNoel>	Ooohhh, 2575, that comment has changed since I looked at it earlier...
 178 17:42:20 <jason_at_intel>	it seems tied with node objects and task processing
 179 17:42:25 <Garyo>	(maybe Bill's gone)
 180 17:42:30 <Garyo>	ok, 2575
 181 17:42:49 <bdbaddog>	no updates from me been pretty swamped lately.
 182 17:42:59 <Garyo>	This is what you guys were talking about at the beginning, i think.
 183 17:43:20 <jason_at_intel>	ya... I just read his sample in the tracker
 184 17:43:25 <jason_at_intel>	hmm
 185 17:43:36 <jason_at_intel>	not tracker.. but bug report
 186 17:44:04 <Garyo>	ok, sounds like you guys are working on it.  Just keep us up to date?
 187 17:44:22 <jason_at_intel>	I think Steve need to be in this talk
 188 17:44:36 <jason_at_intel>	as it seems to be related to stuff that been talked about needing some upgrades
 189 17:45:34 <jason_at_intel>	ie Node objects and TNG
 190 17:44:30 <GregNoel>	yes, I concur, and Gary, too
 191 17:45:28 <GregNoel>	I'll try to write up my notes, but my time is seriously compressed these days.  I may have a bit of time to work on it in a week or two; I'll try very hard to do it then.
 192 17:45:51 <sgk>	which issue(s)?
 193 17:46:10 <jason_at_intel>	Keep this as research lower priority?
 194 17:46:28 <GregNoel>	yeah, p3 or p4
 195 17:46:32 <sgk>	2575?
 196 17:46:34 <Garyo>	2575
 197 17:48:02 <jason_at_intel>	so the idea Greg proposed and has a sample of if to allow a tuples to be used
 198 17:48:37 <jason_at_intel>	this would be useful for copy builder, or any builder that the user might want to control tree structure a little
 199 17:50:26 <sgk>	I don't have a conceptual problem with that; devil's in the details, of course
 200 17:50:54 <jason_at_intel>	what is missing in the sample is the ability for the targets returned from the builder to have this tuples in it, in case structure needs to be passed form builder to builder
 201 17:51:31 <GregNoel>	Hmmm...  I don't see that...
 202 17:51:32 <sgk>	hmm, for passing from builder to builder arbitrary tuples start to feel messy
 203 17:51:41 <jason_at_intel>	yep the details...
 204 17:51:38 <sgk>	what about attributes on an object
 205 17:51:50 <sgk>	(not that there isn't already enough in a Node as it is)
 206 17:52:03 <jason_at_intel>	Well i was playing with the idea of tagging the nodes
 207 17:52:11 <jason_at_intel>	but i have to prototype it yet myself
 208 17:52:13 <GregNoel>	sgk, problem is if same node is passed with multiple names (or to multiple destinations).
 209 17:52:04 <sgk>	so that's what you guys were talking about earlier re: proxies?
 210 17:53:29 <GregNoel>	sgk, yes, tuple needs to be turned into a proxy, which looks like a Node for everything except scheduling.
 211 17:53:48 <sgk>	that sounds workable
 212 17:54:47 <GregNoel>	(Garyo, that's why arg2nodes() works; proxy acts on underlying node.)
 213 17:54:04 <bdbaddog>	K. I'm gonna run unless there's other release items. are we looking at 2.1 checkpoint anytime soon?
 214 17:54:44 <Garyo>	I was just going to ask. I want to get full Intel 11 support in, then it's just a bunch of piddly stuff from me.
 215 17:55:03 <jason_at_intel>	what about 12 :-)
 216 17:55:32 <Garyo>	Jason: get me a copy or at least an ls-lR of Linux and a reg dump on Windows.
 217 17:55:38 <GregNoel>	wait, did we decide on p3 v. p4?
 218 17:55:44 <sgk>	cutting edge!
 219 17:55:57 <jason_at_intel>	the 12 XE is rc1 at the moment
 220 17:56:14 <jason_at_intel>	but i will be adding it to Parts soon myself
 221 17:56:38 <jason_at_intel>	windows should be working today ( ie composer 2011)
 222 17:56:35 <Garyo>	I'll follow up w/ you and see if we can do something.
 223 17:56:45 <jason_at_intel>	sure
 224 17:57:04 <Garyo>	11 doesn't work on Windows today
 225 17:57:21 <jason_at_intel>	in SCon native... in with Parts it does
 226 17:57:12 <GregNoel>	wait, did we decide on p3 v. p4?
 227 17:57:27 <Garyo>	for 2575?  I like p3, but it's up to you folks
 228 17:57:43 <GregNoel>	Hearing no other objections, p3 it is.
 229 17:58:05 <jason_at_intel>	ok
 230 17:58:22 <sgk>	p3
 231 17:59:14 <GregNoel>	That's all the issues for this meeting; good work.  I've got to go; I'll leave my session running to catch the rest of the comments.
 232 17:59:06 <Garyo>	Anyway, as far as I personally am concerned, as soon as I can get intelc 11 support in (and Linux is done now), I'm ready for a checkpoint.
 233 17:59:25 <sgk>	i'll take a look at what's on my plate and whittle it to the most important
 234 17:59:47 <sgk>	offhand, i don't think anything I have is worth holding up a checkpoint for, though
 235 18:00:02 <sgk>	so intelc 11 is a good milestone from my standpoint
 236 18:00:17 <sgk>	(or gating item, actually)
 237 18:00:25 <Garyo>	OK, I'll try very hard to get it in soon (this week maybe)
 238 18:01:17 <jason_at_intel>	so I will wait for you e-mail Steve
 239 18:01:42 <jason_at_intel>	I also have a question about actions and task... I will e-mail offline tomorrow
 240 18:02:05 <jason_at_intel>	hopefully you can take a moment to answer :-)
 241 18:02:29 <sgk>	okay, i'll try to get at it later tonight (working late)
 242 18:01:46 <Garyo>	ok guys, thanks a lot -- talk again soon.
 243 18:02:32 <bdbaddog>	gnight all then. :)
 244 18:02:36 <sgk>	'night
 245 18:02:40 <jason_at_intel>	night!

BugParty/IrcLog2010-09-21 (last edited 2010-09-25 19:23:59 by ip68-7-79-188)