-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/45668/#review126819
-----------------------------------------------------------




support/docker_build.sh (line 1)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/45668/#comment189906>

    When testing did you test both cmake and the non-cmake way on both systems? 
If so could you make this explicit in testing done? 
    THX!



support/docker_build.sh (line 19)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/45668/#comment189905>

    What is the reason for this change? Was it a bug before? (Feel free to drop 
if there is a good reason, it just seems unclear at this point why you changed 
it).



support/docker_build.sh (line 21)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/45668/#comment189901>

    Do we need these echo 1 etc for something? Or is it just for debugging?



support/docker_build.sh (line 90)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/45668/#comment189904>

    again it feels weird to see cmake on the same level as gcc vs clang.
    Shouldn't these decisions be orthogonal (i.e., using Cmake and gcc, cmake 
and clang, autotools and gcc, ...)



support/docker_build.sh (line 91)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/45668/#comment189908>

    Why is this needed here?


- Joerg Schad


On April 4, 2016, 6:54 a.m., Juan Larriba wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/45668/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated April 4, 2016, 6:54 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Alex Clemmer and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> [MESOS-5101] Enable CMake build for Linux as an extra COMPILER option.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   support/docker_build.sh e9b1d7219b261475fb29118ee27d11743c2c5e0d 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/45668/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Built using docker_build.sh on both centos:7 and ubuntu:14.04
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Juan Larriba
> 
>

Reply via email to