On 7/18/05, Matthias Clasen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 13:03 -0400, Luis Villa wrote: > > On 7/18/05, Elijah Newren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 7/18/05, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > P.S. It was suggested that I should 'make distcheck' in tinderbox. > > > > > > > > > > Opinions? > > > > > > Luis is cool for doing all this tinderbox work. > > > > Heh. Thank James mostly; he wrote the code and I'm just whining obsessively. > > > > > > Sane? Insane? > > > > > > Does it matter? I think it'd be useful, though I'm betting libwnck > > > fails and I'll be unable to fix it (I wasn't able to last time I > > > tried, but thankfully people smarter than I are handling the > > > releases...) > > > > Let me ask the question in a more detailed fashion: > > * would it be useful? It was suggested to me that it would make > > snapshotting easier (since things would be basically guaranteed to > > build in a packagable fashion), but are there reasons past that? > > > > * would it be feasible? I'm not going to test something if it is (1) > > likely to be broken 90% of the time and (2) james and thomas are the > > only people with enough skills to fix the problems. Nor does forcing > > all maintainers to learn more auto* seem like a reasonable use of > > anyone's time. > > > > It would certainly make tinderbox builds much slower, since e.g. > distchecking gtk requires building the docs.
I'm assuming that if I keep pushing this and making it more useful someone is going to eventually give me/gnome a faster box to do it on. :) (and then we get into the fun world of -j ;) Luis _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
