Menu
▾
▴
xml-cppdom-devel
|
From: Doug M. <mc...@ia...> - 2011-04-01 02:53:30
Attachments:
cppdom-scons.patch
headers-iter.patch
|
Hello, I have attached two patches that correct the usage of scons on windows and I added a missing header. Doug |
|
From: Patrick H. <pat...@gm...> - 2011-04-04 23:44:34
|
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. -Patrick -- Patrick L. Hartling Senior Software Engineer, Priority 5 http://www.priority5.com/ |
|
From: Doug M. <mc...@ia...> - 2011-04-05 00:10:00
|
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. Doug |
|
From: Patrick H. <pat...@gm...> - 2011-04-06 15:14:04
|
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? -Patrick -- Patrick L. Hartling Senior Software Engineer, Priority 5 http://www.priority5.com/ |
|
From: Doug M. <mc...@ia...> - 2011-04-06 15:57:01
|
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. Doug |
|
From: Patrick H. <pat...@gm...> - 2011-04-11 14:05:11
|
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. -Patrick -- Patrick L. Hartling Senior Software Engineer, Priority 5 http://www.priority5.com/ |
|
From: Doug M. <mc...@ia...> - 2011-04-11 16:52:12
|
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. Doug |
|
From: Patrick H. <pat...@gm...> - 2011-04-23 22:10:23
|
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? -Patrick -- Patrick L. Hartling Senior Software Engineer, Priority 5 http://www.priority5.com/ |
|
From: Doug M. <mc...@ia...> - 2011-04-23 22:28:49
|
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 |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X