On my side I could say that so far none of the guys I asked to test the branch
(3 developers) came back with problems after the small patch on the interactive
mode . On the other side we are running a slightly modified version of scons so
some of the changes we have done may have masked the
I have the same issue with the build at my job. I thought it might have been
bug in Parts passing data around, a badly define build files that dependson
stuff differently if something exists on disk or not ( ie something that is
built). However I pretty sure there is a bug in SCons. I leaning
Are you saying 2.3.0 was fine but 2.3.1 rebuilds needlessly? Or is this
something that was there in 2.3.0?
--
Gary Oberbrunner
(sent from my Android)
On Jan 10, 2014 12:56 PM, Kenny, Jason L jason.l.ke...@intel.com wrote:
I have the same issue with the build at my job. I thought it might have
On 10.01.2014 18:46, Kenny, Jason L wrote:
I have the same issue with the build at my job. I thought it might
have been bug in Parts passing data around, a badly define build files
that dependson stuff differently if something exists on disk or not (
ie something that is built). However I
I have seen this since SCons 2.0
Jason
From: scons-dev-boun...@scons.org [mailto:scons-dev-boun...@scons.org] On
Behalf Of Gary Oberbrunner
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 12:01 PM
To: SCons Dev List
Subject: Re: [Scons-dev] please try latest default branch
Are you saying 2.3.0 was fine but
So to answer the question Yes we do. In fact we have two cases:
1) Header generation ( this is done via the Parts call to PythonScript()
which is a builder I added to call a python file given two functions, one for
emitting what it will do and one to do the work). This is not an issue as
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Kenny, Jason L jason.l.ke...@intel.comwrote:
I have seen this since SCons 2.0
OK, so it's not a regression caused by the 2.3.0 changes. Good to know.
--
Gary
___
Scons-dev mailing list
Scons-dev@scons.org
