IrcLog2010 10 26

16:57:18  *      bdbaddog (~[[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])) has joined #SCONS 
17:00:43  <sgk>  hey guys 
17:01:00  <bdbaddog>     Greetings. 
17:01:06  *      Jason_at_Intel (~[[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])) has joined #SCONS 
17:01:53  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Hi, I can't stay the entire time, so if we're going to get started, we should do it soon. 
17:02:04  <Jason_at_Intel>       hello 
17:02:16  <sgk>  let's go, gary indicated he has a conflict 
17:02:22  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2689 clear preference for 2.1 p2, but who can do it? 
17:03:07  <sgk>  sigh...  probably belongs in my camp, i probably know that code best 
17:03:17  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:03:26  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2690 Consensus on "asap" but that needs to be defined (also "who"). 
17:03:49  <sgk>  gary suggested using callable(), give it to him? 
17:03:59  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     works for me 
17:04:16  <Jason_at_Intel>       agree 
17:04:24  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:04:27  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2691 Done by Gary (thanks!) 
17:04:27  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2692 Technically invalid.  Also technically a dup of 2536.  I agree with Steven that a separate [InstallDir](InstallDir)() is not the way to go.  So, is this sufficiently urgent that we should do it independently of 2536?  I'm inclined to treat it as a dup. 
17:05:06  <sgk>  i'd go with dup, unless someone feels strongly enough to take it on sooner 
17:05:13  <Jason_at_Intel>       I think this shows a need to handle structure in the node lists 
17:05:42  <sgk>  Jason_at_Intel:  that sounds right 
17:05:58  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     This has nothing to do with node lists; it's about structuring a destination directory. 
17:06:29  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Yes, zip files should be structured in the same way, but that's not the point here. 
17:06:34  <Jason_at_Intel>       ya... like Zipfile... remember you idea with tuples 
17:07:12  <sgk>  anyway, it's big enough that i doubt anyone's going to pull a rabbit out of their hat for it soon 
17:07:19  <Jason_at_Intel>       I agree a new function is the wrong way to go.. I am only saying that a fundamental fix is needed in SCons.. once that is done a large set of issues go away 
17:07:23  <sgk>  so dup 2536 should be fine 
17:07:31  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, dup it is; done 
17:07:35  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2693 I'm willing for it to be 2.x p3, so there's consensus there, but who should do it?  And should it be activated by catching the exception if the unlink() fails? 
17:08:19  <sgk>  Jason_at_Intel:  since you already dealt with the os.stat() issue in Parts, could you take this one? 
17:08:24  <Jason_at_Intel>       I have a fix in Parts with an unlink override that will do this 
17:08:37  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:08:49  <sgk>  if you want to implement it in a way that melds nicely with Parts, that'd be cool 
17:08:58  <Jason_at_Intel>       I guess... can we get that patch ( maybe tweaked in this case) that i put i dev list in SCons? 
17:09:33  <sgk>  which one?  i don't see why not 
17:09:50  <Jason_at_Intel>       it would this one... getting link 
17:10:36  <Jason_at_Intel>       [http://scons.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1268&dsMessageId=2673518](http://scons.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1268&dsMessageId=2673518) 
17:11:02  <Jason_at_Intel>       this will allow the base of what is needed to get hard links and symlinks working in SCons for windows 
17:11:53  <sgk>  okay, but that's orthogonal to 2693, yes? 
17:11:54  <Jason_at_Intel>       we can add the tweaked CCopy builder as well if you like :-) ( as my copy has the reporting API in Parts for --verbose ability) 
17:12:09  <sgk>  so let's get through the bug list first before discussing those details 
17:12:38  <Jason_at_Intel>       only in that i would then add the unlink overide to retarget readonly files as well 
17:12:16  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2694 (First thing I'd look for is spelling errors.) 
17:13:10  <Jason_at_Intel>       Greg I would agree 
17:13:55  <Jason_at_Intel>       They might be an issue with MSVS_VERSION 
17:14:03  <sgk>  2694:   spelling errors in what?  he posted his SConstruct, and MSV[CS]_VERSION are spelled correctly, at least... 
17:14:45  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     sgk, I'll take your word for it. 
17:14:51  <sgk>  yeah, he posted it 
17:14:41  <Jason_at_Intel>       there should be a simple test case that can verify this. 
17:15:38  <sgk>  bdbaddog, do you have cycles to investigate?  if not, how about if we ask gary to follow up, since he already replied once 
17:15:41  <Jason_at_Intel>       BDog? 
17:16:20  <bdbaddog>     hmm. I can take a first pass at it. 
17:16:40  <bdbaddog>     just checking that MSVSProject is reading/doing anything with those variables.. 
17:16:44  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     research?  If so, then what priority? 
17:16:47  <bdbaddog>     it could be broken from the refactoring. 
17:16:54  <sgk>  p3? 
17:17:11  <bdbaddog>     p3 
17:17:14  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     works for me 
17:17:19  <sgk>  cool, thanks 
17:17:17  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2695 
17:18:50  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     I'm almost positive Action() does the right thing (there are tests for it); what did you mean here? 
17:18:53  <sgk>  2695:  looking to see if my diagnosis looks in the ballpark 
17:19:48  <sgk>  yeah, looks right 
17:20:16  <sgk>  [GregNoel](GregNoel):  you're right, Actions know how to rebuild in response to changes to variables, but only if they know what variables are used 
17:20:30  <sgk>  command-line strings track the changes for free because we expand them 
17:20:39  <sgk>  but Python function actions don't get expanded that way 
17:20:57  <sgk>  so they have to be told what construction variables the Python function will look at when building its target 
17:20:57  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Ah, you mean MSVSProject() doesn't provide the variables? 
17:21:00  <sgk>  yeah 
17:21:37  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     So yes, easy fix: just provide the variables.  Who does it? 
17:21:35  <sgk>  so give it to me, should be pretty trivial 
17:21:43  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:22:01  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2696 Er, it's not O(1), but I agree with Gary that the size should be included. 
17:22:53  <Jason_at_Intel>       I think it would be nice if we could reuse existing logic 
17:23:21  <sgk>  the question is how? 
17:23:42  <sgk>  we have this Unlink() action that really should only be called if necessary 
17:23:48  <sgk>  instead of every time 
17:23:55  <Jason_at_Intel>       and i think the link unlink can be used for more than it is going forward with the fixes i have for win32 
17:25:40  <Jason_at_Intel>       so it might be good to factor the checking "decider" logic in a different way in the node objects 
17:25:44  <sgk>  the architectural issue (iirc) is that the duplicate logic is kind of handled as a side effect of examining source files 
17:26:22  <sgk>  not as a direct action in the DAG walk, which is probably where it should really happen 
17:26:36  <sgk>  so the goal of re-using it is good, but would take a lot more work 
17:27:06  <sgk>  and i'd hate to not give people a good optimization in the meantime 
17:27:18  <Jason_at_Intel>       well that seems simple then 
17:27:29  <sgk>  we should still be able to refactor it in the future along the lines you're suggesting 
17:27:32  <Jason_at_Intel>       take the fix.. and note that this needs to be cleaned up 
17:27:45  <sgk>  yeah 
17:27:58  <sgk>  oh, i'll open up a separate issue to track that clean up 
17:28:01  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     decision? 
17:28:12  <sgk>  so...  2.1 p3 sgk? 
17:28:30  <Jason_at_Intel>       +1 
17:28:32  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     hmmm...  Yeah, that seems OK. 
17:28:34  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:28:53  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2697 
17:29:05  <sgk>  bdbaddog or Jason_at_Intel, can either of you volunteer? 
17:29:41  <Jason_at_Intel>       I have code, and stuff to share to help... 
17:30:06  <Jason_at_Intel>       however the current msvc tools is beyond me.. as i already have a working version in Parts 
17:30:37  <sgk>  can you update the issue with specifics about the registry difference? 
17:30:47  <Jason_at_Intel>       Be happy to 
17:31:00  <bdbaddog>     I was looking at vc9 vs vc9 express (and for 10) wasn't sure how to detect the diff. 
17:31:41  <sgk>  bdbaddog:  if Jason_at_Intel provides that info, would it be pretty straightforward to fix? 
17:32:34  <Jason_at_Intel>       r'Software\[Wow6432Node](Wow6432Node)\Microsoft\[VisualStudio](VisualStudio)\9.0\Setup\VC\[ProductDir](ProductDir)', 
17:32:36  <Jason_at_Intel>                           r'Software\Microsoft\[VisualStudio](VisualStudio)\9.0\Setup\VC\[ProductDir](ProductDir)', 
17:32:38  <Jason_at_Intel>                           r'Software\[Wow6432Node](Wow6432Node)\Microsoft\VCExpress\9.0\Setup\VC\[ProductDir](ProductDir)', 
17:32:39  <Jason_at_Intel>                           r'Software\Microsoft\VCExpress\9.0\Setup\VC\[ProductDir](ProductDir)' 
17:32:42  <bdbaddog>     I'm not sure there's a fix for this, looks invalid.? 
17:32:50  <Jason_at_Intel>       first two are pro... second two are express 
17:33:01  <bdbaddog>     @jason please post to bug or email to dev list 
17:33:12  <Jason_at_Intel>       doing it as we type 
17:33:14  <bdbaddog>     if they request an invalid TARGET_ARCH.. 
17:33:39  <Jason_at_Intel>       well there is another case in this... 
17:33:51  <Jason_at_Intel>       there is the 2008 server sdk 
17:33:57  <bdbaddog>     anyway .. yes I'll take a look. 
17:34:02  <Jason_at_Intel>       this has teh 32-bit -64-bit and ia64 compilers 
17:34:07  <Jason_at_Intel>       all looks the same 
17:34:12  <sgk>  bdbaddog:  oh, the issue being that the default is to build for the current host arch (64 bits) but he has no 64-bit compiler installed? 
17:34:14  <bdbaddog>     we handle sdk separately. 
17:34:34  <bdbaddog>     well sort of, if I remember we have a list of SDK's which are valid with diff VC/VS's. 
17:34:59  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     decision?  research?  If so, then what priority? 
17:35:15  <sgk>  if that's the case, you're right, that does sound invalid 
17:35:26  <bdbaddog>     research 2.1 p3 
17:35:28  <bdbaddog>     me 
17:35:41  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:35:45  <sgk>  seems like he has an obvious workaround, set TARGET_ARCH to 32 bit, so yeah, 2.1 p3 seems eminently fair 
17:35:52  <bdbaddog>     I did finally get a win 7 64 bit machine to play on. so that'll help 
17:35:52  <sgk>  I'd be okay with even lower 
17:36:02  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2698 No spreadsheet quorum, so we should bypass this issue if there's no immediate agreement.  (If I have time while I'm writing up the meeting results, I may propose a patch.) 
17:36:24  <sgk>  2698:  sounds good 
17:36:35  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     so, bypass? 
17:36:47  <sgk>  yes 
17:36:50  <bdbaddog>     +`1 
17:36:51  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:37:02  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     2699 Again, no spreadsheet quorum.  That said, I think I prefer dup 2536. 
17:37:19  <sgk>  i'll go with dup 2536 
17:37:31  <Jason_at_Intel>       +1 
17:37:40  <sgk>  especially since there's a reference back when the dup occurs, it's not like we lose any additional info 
17:37:45  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:37:49  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     Of the issues up for review, only 1406 could be considered to have a quorum, and that's only if you include Dirk's email.  I propose we assign 1406 to Dirk, make Steven either CC or QA, and turn him loose. 
17:38:33  <sgk>  +1, that sounds good 
17:38:58  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     sgk, do you want CC or QA? 
17:39:19  <sgk>  uh....  both?  QA, if both are superfluous 
17:39:33  <sgk>  (both is superfluous?) 
17:39:52  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     both can't hurt; the notification email isn't duplicated. 
17:39:58  <sgk>  both, then 
17:40:03  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     done 
17:40:10  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     OK, we're done. 
17:40:23  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     And I've got to go, good timing. 
17:40:28  <sgk>  ok, thnx everyone 
17:40:37  <bdbaddog>     np.. l8r 
17:40:50  <[GregNoel](GregNoel)>     bye, all... 
17:41:12  <sgk>  [GregNoel](GregNoel), bdbaddog:  'night 
17:40:51  <sgk>  Jason_at_Intel:  any more stuff to go over?  I owe you emails from weeks ago 
17:41:14  <Jason_at_Intel>       sure 
17:41:23  <Jason_at_Intel>       the file handling stuff 
17:42:04  <Jason_at_Intel>       I think what i have in Parts for override the file open call ( and unlink .. minus maybe the readonly file issue)  is ready to go 
17:42:40  <Jason_at_Intel>       I have it re factored in truck as a separate file 
17:42:54  <Jason_at_Intel>       to make it easy to add to SCons 
17:43:24  <Jason_at_Intel>       there is a little quirk in that I whack the current SCons win32 file overrides 
17:43:33  <Jason_at_Intel>       but other than that I think this code is done 
17:44:12  <Jason_at_Intel>       I am sure there is other stuff.. but i can remember the e-mails at this time ( long day...) 
17:44:18  <sgk>  well, if your overrides work better, that should be fine 
17:44:49  <sgk>  i hear you re: long day, real life's been impossible lately 
17:45:24  <sgk>  there's nothing in your windows symlink support that'll blow up on earlier Windows or Python versions, is there? 
17:46:48  <Jason_at_Intel>       only if you don't have ctypes 
17:47:10  <Jason_at_Intel>       I have fixes in my CCopy builder to deal with an issue with hardlinks already existing 
17:47:37  <Jason_at_Intel>       might be a better way minus the delete call to deal with it... but it works well enough 
17:47:54  <sgk>  okay, so send me a patch and I'll take a look 
17:48:00  <Jason_at_Intel>       however that code.. or any code like this needs this override to allow correct file creation so links of some form can be used 
17:48:04  <sgk>  and I'll also dig up the email stuff I was supposed to send 
17:48:21  <Jason_at_Intel>       so.. that is the question.. I have a file 
17:48:25  <Jason_at_Intel>       not a patch 
17:49:08  <Jason_at_Intel>       [http://parts.tigris.org/source/browse/parts/trunk/parts/parts/overrides/os_file.py?revision=344&view=markup](http://parts.tigris.org/source/browse/parts/trunk/parts/parts/overrides/os_file.py?revision=344&view=markup) 
17:50:02  <Jason_at_Intel>       sort of unclear how to do this "patch" in Scons as it is new code, and might need a certain location 
17:51:20  <Jason_at_Intel>       so i guess look it over.. I will send links again tomorrow in e-mail 
17:51:49  <Jason_at_Intel>       we can discuss where it should go in SCons 
17:53:06  <Jason_at_Intel>       Does that sound OK? 
17:55:04  <Jason_at_Intel>       ?? 
17:55:21  <sgk>  sure, sounds good 
17:55:29  <sgk>  (sorry, got interrupted -- still at work) 
17:55:36  <Jason_at_Intel>       great 
17:55:51  <Jason_at_Intel>       oh I recall one item 
17:55:56  <Jason_at_Intel>       the scons.bat issue 
17:56:06  <Jason_at_Intel>       you can use scons.py on windows 
17:56:15  <Jason_at_Intel>       it works better in general 
17:56:36  <Jason_at_Intel>       but we can do that in e-mail 
17:56:47  <sgk>  except for passing command line arguments, there's some gotcha with that 
17:57:07  <Jason_at_Intel>       I have to get going here it is about 8pm.. need to help with the twins... 
17:57:08  <sgk>  at least for some combination of Python version + Windows version 
17:57:09  <Jason_at_Intel>       oh?? 
17:57:19  <Jason_at_Intel>       I have not seen this 
17:57:34  <sgk>  yeah, i remember having some links describing it, i'll dig them up 
17:57:49  <Jason_at_Intel>       ok.. will be good to review 
17:58:01  <sgk>  yeah 
17:58:09  <sgk>  okay, good night, good luck with the twins 
17:58:29  <Jason_at_Intel>       thank.. 
17:58:37  <Jason_at_Intel>       good night! 
17:58:44  *      Jason_at_Intel has quit (Quit: [ChatZilla](ChatZilla) 0.9.86 [Firefox 3.5.3/20090824101458]) 
18:00:07  *      bdbaddog (~[[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])) has left #SCONS 
18:00:13  *      sgk (~sgk@nat/google/x-mbowtfhelsfesqin) has left #SCONS