I ran into that yesterday as well trying to make a make generator fix. I think I'll hang on until mmoss gets back since I heard he's in the middle of trying to fix that. But assuming the unittest can all be made green, then it's update the public instructions, and finally buildbot work?
I can pickup on fixing the public instructions if no one objects. I don't think that needs to be blocked on the unittests, and might as well allow it to propagate out to the casual developers like while we get our ducks in line. -Albert 2009/10/28 Bradley Nelson <bradnel...@google.com> > Looks like the failures are part of the same test case. > It's the case where the same source file is built as part of two different > targets using different defines. > The make generator appears to build it only one way and use it in both > targets. > > -BradN > > 2009/10/28 Bradley Nelson <bradnel...@google.com> > > So we have set of tests for gyp which are green for all the generators >> other than make. >> I believe mmoss has been whittling away on them, and I think its down to >> just 2 failures. >> go/gypbot >> After that its just a matter of the will to switch over the buildbots and >> fix any unforeseen issues. >> >> -BradN >> >> 2009/10/28 Lei Zhang <thes...@chromium.org> >> >> >>> mmoss has been working on the make gyp generator, maybe he has a >>> better feel for what's keeping us from switching. >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Albert J. Wong (王重傑) >>> <ajw...@chromium.org> wrote: >>> > On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Marc-Antoine Ruel < >>> mar...@chromium.org> >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Not that it is effective :) >>> > >>> > Starred. :) >>> > Now what? >>> > >>> >> >>> >> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Marc-Antoine Ruel < >>> mar...@chromium.org> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> > Have you tried starring http://crbug.com/22044 ? >>> >> > >>> >> > On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Albert J. Wong (王重傑) >>> >> > <ajw...@chromium.org> wrote: >>> >> >> If I'm not mistaken, I think like most everyone running on linux is >>> >> >> using >>> >> >> the make build nowadays, and the make build seems to work well >>> enough >>> >> >> for >>> >> >> most people. The only time I hear someone mention the scons build, >>> >> >> it's in >>> >> >> reference to "you broke the scons build," or "so you developed on >>> make. >>> >> >> Did >>> >> >> you check it worked on scons?" >>> >> >> Given that, what's keeping us from killing the scons build >>> completely? >>> >> >> My current motivation for asking is that I've been spending the >>> last >>> >> >> hour >>> >> >> trying to figure out why scons is deciding to insert an -fPIC into >>> my >>> >> >> build, >>> >> >> whereas make is not. This is on top of my previous motivation >>> (from >>> >> >> about 3 >>> >> >> days ago) where I spent another few hours making something that >>> worked >>> >> >> fine >>> >> >> on the make build, scons compatible. I'd rather spend that time >>> >> >> killing >>> >> >> scons if there was a clear list of what was needed to make that >>> happen. >>> >> >> -Albert >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
