> Are we happy with the gump config on brutus? Is that setup reasonably > stable?
Unless we decide to move to tomcat/forrest, I'd say so. If there is anything I am not sure I like about the set-up is that we mirrored the /usr/local/gump from Moof, and I'm not sure if that directory is the best root one on all. I like things like /var/gump and /opt/gump/packages and things like that, and (maybe) /home/gump. But, so long as we can find choices (or a choice) that suits norms on these platforms, I don't really care. I think the ideas of shared packages, and shared forrest/maven/whatever are good. Not sure they are installed in the best place, but they work. The idea of multiple installs is nice. In a perfect world we might want one install, multiple workspaces, but we aren't there yet. Oh yes, and I'm still not sure about .bash_profile including one flavours' local-env-py.sh. I didn't take Sam up on his posting (I forget when/werre) that said, don't expect these settings in cronjob. As such, we are still using gumpy (that works, but is ugly since it needs three more env variables & doesn't read the workspace to get the values) not gumpy.py. I think we need to ensure we have a 'test' flavour [or test workspace perhaps] on every box, one that we expect folks to tinker with (when the main build isn't running). A test workspace would work [other than the fact it could mask 'updated'] because we'd only run it at odd times, and we'd not crap on the same output tree (like I often do testing.) In short, we have improvements we can make, but Brutus (the breakthrough was using a shared 'gump') is a good un. > I'd like to mirror on lsd to the maximum extent possible. Since brutus > is debian and lsd is fedora, the mirroring won't be complete, but we > should get pretty far. Great idea. Perhaps re-install from scratch (save packages) into a gump account. regards, Adam --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
