On 17 Sep 2003 Ajay Agrawalla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Martin Pool wrote: > Yup. Agree. Having different version of tool chain on the build machines > can be nightmare while building one executable or lib. May be this > certification phase for the build process itself is not a good idea.
The only solution to compiler problems is for people to install the right packages on every machine. Hopefully they do that in some systematic way by installing rpms or debs or something similar, rather than unpacking compilers all over the place. (I live in hope... :-) In this case making sure that the versions are correct is trivial for the user. If they have a mess of partial or mismatched installations, as can happen, then detecting the problem is only a small step towards fixing it. A fair fraction of bugs reported these days and observed by me seem to be, as in Russ's case, actually bugs in the user's Makefile. Much as I would like to be able to magic them away, I don't think there is anything much we can do. I think in many situations Make is also the performance-limiting factor. Moving to a new tool like SCons[1] or writing a better makefile can help enormously, though it can be hard work. > while we on this topic of pre-certification, have you thought abt it for > other purpose like authenticated machines, qulified machine depending on > their network thouroughput, etc. but may be these are just things we as > developers just don;t care to invest any time in it. I have thought about it, and in particular about having the list automatically sorted by speed. At the moment I am spending a little time on trying to do a better monitor program[0], and then I might try that. > Good job at distcc though. Thanks. -- Martin [0] http://distcc.samba.org/news.html#2003-09-16 [1] http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/distcc/2003q1/000619.html __ distcc mailing list http://distcc.samba.org/ To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/distcc
