Re: Debian package and development of CONS

[H. S. Teoh]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 09:56:56AM +0200, Dominique Dumont wrote:
> "H. S. Teoh" <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > I'd say an initial effort ought to be closer to the Python interface than
> > the existing Cons interface. There are some ugly aspects of the current
> > Cons interface which I'd rather not spend the time re-creating on the
> > SCons engine. We can of course revisit it after we have a working Perl
> > wrapper for SCons, and add compatibility interfaces so that migration to
> > SCons is easier; but I think any initial effort should be targeted at
> > making the SCons interface available in Perl rather than reproducing the
> > current Cons interface. 
> 
> While I more or less agree with your point, let's not forget that a
> lot of cons scripts already exists.
> 
> So if we have to steer cons interface in a new direction, we must keep
> a backward compatibility. If it's not possible a migration path must
> be found on a case by case basis.
[snip]

My point was that we can add backward compatibility later. But for the
initial effort, we want to get something off the ground that works, so we
shouldn't get bogged down by backward compatibility at first. Of course,
we should still leave room for backward compatibility to be added once we
got something working.

My view is that backward compatibility isn't the foremost concern here; 
the current Cons still works reasonably well for existing scripts. People
don't *have* to migrate until we got something that works on top of SCons. 


T

-- 
English has the lovely word "defenestrate", meaning "to execute by throwing
someone out a window", or more recently "to remove Windows from a computer
and replace it with something useful". :-) -- John Cowan

pgpoW11O2AVaX.pgp
Description: PGP signature