On 12/15/05, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matthew Burgess wrote: > > > So, where now? In an ideal world (yeah, that's the one where there > > aren't any constraints on time, CPU cycles, etc.!), we would carry out > > ICA tests on the current build order and compare them to the results of > > the same tests run on an alphabetical build. That way we'd know if > > we've gained anything in terms of reliability/reproducability. > > Ken's Farce is probably good enough for our needs. However I did take a > brief look at Greg's scripts and he does a couple of other interesting > things, such as de-compressing all .gz files and un-archiving all .a > files before running the comparison. I didn't get to take an extended > look at it, yet, but I hope to soon. I intend to give my best shot at > running an ICA on the branch. I may look at moving procps up in the > order first, as perl's testsuite needs it.
It sounds like Ken's scripts do a great job of doing the comparison. What I like about Greg's scripts is deciding what's being compared. 1. The build automatically loops to the beginning, skipping the first few stages: create symlinks, create devices, mount file systems, create directories, etc. for all but the first iteration. 2. For all stages he stops short of installing many of the custom configuration files like /etc/profile, /etc/fstab, etc. Keeps the building environment consistent. This is what I like better than what Ken's tool does. I'm not sure how it removes the variables of kernel, modules, env vars, etc. 3. Copies only the necessary files to a temporary location immediately after the build completes. This is more trivial, but it safeguards you against accidentally making an unalterable change on your system later. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
