 |
 |
I'll limit my responses to questions about sconsUtils, as that's the only area where I'm really an expert here. On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 5:02 AM, Fabrice Jammes <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > - Do you think Qserv build should relies on sconsutils ? I don't think this is as important as relying on EUPS; I personally think Qserv should use sconsUtils only if it is convenient to do so. It basically provides a configuration system and convenience functions that allow SCons scripts to be much more concise if the package is laid out in a certain way and you're willing to commit to creating .cfg files that describe all of your dependencies. In particular, it will be most helpful if: - You have a lot of compiled code; a lot of what sconsUtils provides is configuration of various compiler build variables (include directories, library directories, etc). - You organize the package in the same way as most DM packages, with doc, include, lib, python, src, and ups directories. - You use Swig to build Python wrappers for C++ code and need to build against Swig modules created by dependencies. > - Do you thinks sconsutils may be compatible with rpm format ? Most of it is, and possibly all of it. The part I'd be concerned with is the need for .cfg files not just for your own package but for all your dependencies as well. So if your dependencies come from other rpms, you'd need .cfg files for those too. But they wouldn't need to be installed with those dependencies; you could package them directly with Qserv too. Other than that, using sconsUtils with rpm shouldn't be any different from any other SCons-based build system. Jim ######################################################################## Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list To unsubscribe from the QSERV-L list, click the following link: https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=QSERV-L&A=1