Re: [xml-cppdom-devel] Patch to correct windows build

[Doug M. <mc...@ia...>]

On Apr 23, 2011, at 5:10 PM, Patrick Hartling wrote:

> On Apr 11, 2011, at 11:52 AM, Doug McCorkle wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Apr 11, 2011, at 9:04 AM, Patrick Hartling wrote:
>> 
>>> On Apr 6, 2011, at 10:56 AM, Doug McCorkle wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Patrick Hartling <pat...@gm...> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 4, 2011, at 7:09 PM, Doug McCorkle wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Apr 4, 2011, at 6:44 PM, Patrick Hartling wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mar 31, 2011, at 9:53 PM, Doug McCorkle wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I have attached two patches that correct the usage of scons on windows and I added a missing header.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What is the minimum required version of SCons after applying the build changes? I haven't been keeping up with SCons API changes/deprecations.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I changed it to 2.0 in the SConstruct. I took the liberty of doing this since I am not sure why anyone would really want to run something older than the latest stable release of SCons.
>>>> 
>>>> I see your point. I am just a little hesitant because there will probably be at least a few people who can't easily update to SCons 2.0. That said, if people do complain about this, we have the option of distributing and using a local SCons within the CppDOM build, right?
>>>> 
>>>> I do not really follow your question. I understand your hesitation though.
>>> 
>>> I just meant that CppDOM could include its own SCons 2.0 local installation if users run into problems with being unable to install SCons 2.0 themselves.
>> 
>> Yes, we could easily do that. Thanks for the clarification. This would also be the same issue with the gmtl patch I submitted.
> 
> I applied the build system patch to the trunk as r678. My thinking is that this gives me a reason to release CppDOM 1.2.0. From looking at the change log, the SCons requirement is really the only difference between 1.0 and 1.2. I need to do a full diff of the trunk and the 1.0 branch to be sure, though.
> 
> Are there any objections to this plan?

No, the new release would help me out quite a bit.

Doug