Gregg I think it would be a great change to move to using site_scons. You even made a draft change a long time ago. https://gerrit.iotivity.org/gerrit/#/c/8597/
That change was trying to do multiple things in one commit so it was hard to get maintainers to accept. On that change I suggested breaking it up into 3 or four changes with suggestions where to break it up. Sometimes timing is everything. Making a change like using site_scons will get a little push back while the 1.3 release is pending. If you make the change shortly after the 1.3 release it will probably be the best time to get a change like that accepted. George From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gregg Reynolds Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 3:02 PM To: Mats Wichmann <mats at wichmann.us> Cc: IoTivity Developer List <iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org> Subject: Re: [dev] Scons questions On May 4, 2017 4:49 PM, "Mats Wichmann" <mats at wichmann.us<mailto:mats at wichmann.us>> wrote: #1, if you use the env.Function() form of something, it implies you're passing env, right? I'm wondering because I see this construct: connectivity_env.SConscript('#common/SConscript'), exports = 'connectivity_env') is the exports part in this invocation redundant? #2, it seems scripts call other scripts (especially ones in extlibs) to make sure some dependency is in place, and occasionally to fetch some related variables. But it seems to me you should only need to do this once... if such subsidiary SConscripts properly export any needed things that should appear in the global environment. just out of curiosity - I'm _not_ whining, really! - has the idea of moving to a standard scons setup been dropped? e.g. using site_scons, etc. that would solve a lot of problems. gregg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.iotivity.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/attachments/20170505/b91f657e/attachment.html>
