Re: [Scons-dev] SCons 3.0, sconsign files and Py2 vs Py3.. how to handle sconsign imcompatabilities

2017-09-11 Thread Tim Jenness
> On Sep 11, 2017, at 10:09 , Bill Deegan wrote: > > One thought would be to allow annotating the function with a specified csig. > and/or version #. > This would help (at least) for internal action functions (built in to scons). > That would be great but I think

Re: [Scons-dev] SCons 3.0, sconsign files and Py2 vs Py3.. how to handle sconsign imcompatabilities

2017-09-11 Thread Bill Deegan
One thought would be to allow annotating the function with a specified csig. and/or version #. This would help (at least) for internal action functions (built in to scons). On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Tim Jenness wrote: > > > On Sep 11, 2017, at 06:24, Bill Deegan

Re: [Scons-dev] SCons 3.0, sconsign files and Py2 vs Py3.. how to handle sconsign imcompatabilities

2017-09-11 Thread Tim Jenness
> On Sep 11, 2017, at 06:24, Bill Deegan wrote: > > Likely the rebuild py2 vs py3 is the action signature for functions now uses > the bytecode. The bytecode is different between py2 and py3. > > Previously it was either pickling the function (which didn't

Re: [Scons-dev] SCons 3.0, sconsign files and Py2 vs Py3.. how to handle sconsign imcompatabilities

2017-09-11 Thread Bill Deegan
Likely the rebuild py2 vs py3 is the action signature for functions now uses the bytecode. The bytecode is different between py2 and py3. Previously it was either pickling the function (which didn't adequately check for changes in the python functions), or dumping the string representation : For

Re: [Scons-dev] [Scons-users] SCons 3.0, sconsign files and Py2 vs Py3.. how to handle sconsign imcompatabilities

2017-09-11 Thread Bill Deegan
Dirk, I'd rather push that change to 3.1 (The need for speed release). That'll also give us time for some betas with those changes. -Bill On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 5:43 AM, Dirk Baechle wrote: > Hi Bill, > > Am 10. September 2017 04:13:37 MESZ schrieb Bill Deegan < >

Re: [Scons-dev] Sorry

2017-09-11 Thread Bill Deegan
No worries. I got it sorted with some help from Dirk. I guess I need to add scons packaging buildbot builder to catch such more quickly. -Bill On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 4:00 AM, Russel Winder wrote: > Bill, > > Apologies you had to construct DCommon.xml. Clearly I failed

Re: [Scons-dev] [Scons-users] SCons 3.0, sconsign files and Py2 vs Py3.. how to handle sconsign imcompatabilities

2017-09-11 Thread Dirk Baechle
Hi Bill, Am 10. September 2017 04:13:37 MESZ schrieb Bill Deegan : >Greetings, > >This is (I hope) the last issue gating 3.0 release. > >Thoughts? > not about this issue, but can we try to get the "stubprocess.py" wrapper from Parts integrated for v3.0? I'm working

[Scons-dev] Sorry

2017-09-11 Thread Russel Winder
Bill, Apologies you had to construct DCommon.xml. Clearly I failed to run a documentation build test. -- Russel. = Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Roadm: