On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 13:18 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
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 ;)
I think the UCC can do something to provide number
On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 08:27 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
I think the UCC can do something to provide number crunching power...
just as soon as we work out how to cool it. Of course, most of our spare
CPU power is currently in the form of Alpha CPUs, but I guess that would
check that our code
Hi,
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 14:34 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 20:23 +0200, Ikke wrote:
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 13:28 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
I think the advantages of adding make distcheck are bigger than the
disadvantages.
OK, but what are they? :)
Making
[was Re: make check failures-
gnome-vfs, e-d-s, at-spi]
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 15:29 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
One way to go about is to require all involved modules to have an
RPM .spec file, and jhbuild can be instructed to build and
install RPMs, but most probably
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
I think I'm with Matthias on this - make distcheck shows plenty of
issues that aren't going to affect anyone in reality, and no maintainer
wants to be pestered every day about the latest random thing that's
gotten screwed up.
If people
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 10:37 -0400, Dan Winship wrote:
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 16:06 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
On 7/18/05, Andrew Sobala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 15:54 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
What's so difficult about jhbuild? Couldn't we make just make it easier
Dan Winship wrote:
Could we just package up the results of the jhbuild in a dumb,
completely mechanical way, such that installing the packages would be
exactly equivalent to running jhbuild? ie, it wouldn't replace or
conflict with your existing GNOME packages, it would just install
everything
On 7/19/05, Jeff Waugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
quote who=Luis Villa
shrug If we're going to throw massive tarballs over the wall, might as
well add the extra few megs and just make them debug from the start, no?
Luis (noting that he has no idea if this would actually *work*)
This
quote who=Luis Villa
Yeah, figured it would have to be per-distro*. With a little help from
vmware or something along those lines that should be too hard to automate.
That'll be slow. Use a chroot. :-)
- Jeff
--
OSCON 2005: August 1st-5th http://conferences.oreillynet.com/os2005/
On 7/19/05, Dan Winship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 11:31 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
On 7/19/05, Alexander Larsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The naming of the packages could also be such that there is no chance of
conflicting with your vendor gnome, current version or
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 12:01 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
On 7/19/05, Dan Winship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 11:31 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
On 7/19/05, Alexander Larsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The naming of the packages could also be such that there is no chance of
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
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
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.
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 13:28 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
I think the advantages of adding make distcheck are bigger than the
disadvantages.
OK, but what are they? :)
Making sure people doing anonymous cvs checkouts will at any time be
able to build the package they co, not running in major
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 15:22 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
On 7/18/05, Behdad Esfahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Luis Villa wrote:
build/distribute daily snapshots like we used to. Not sure if that is
worth the admitted pain of nagging/etc., especially since ATM no one
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Luis Villa wrote:
We're not lacking people doing tinderboxing.[1] The thing we're really
missing (which has always been more important than tinderboxing, IMHO)
is for someone to build daily rpms and debs for popular distributions,
so that 'average' users can use rug, yum,
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 15:22 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
We're not lacking people doing tinderboxing.[1] The thing we're really
missing (which has always been more important than tinderboxing, IMHO)
is for someone to build daily rpms and debs for popular distributions,
so that 'average' users can
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Ikke wrote:
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 21:42:09 +0200
From: Ikke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Behdad Esfahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Luis Villa [EMAIL PROTECTED], desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: make distcheck in tinderbox [was Re: make check failures-
gnome-vfs, e-d
On 7/18/05, Behdad Esfahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Luis Villa wrote:
build/distribute daily snapshots like we used to. Not sure if that is
worth the admitted pain of nagging/etc., especially since ATM no one
is offering to build daily snaps.
I'm willing to do
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 13:41 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
I think the advantages of adding make distcheck are bigger than the
disadvantages.
In the end, being able to do make a tinderbox with make distcheck
and
CFLAGS+=-Wall -Werror -pedantic -ansi would be so cool ;-)
-Wall -ansi
On 7/18/05, Andrew Sobala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 15:54 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 15:22 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
On 7/18/05, Behdad Esfahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Luis Villa wrote:
build/distribute daily
Dnia 18-07-2005, pon o godzinie 13:28 -0400, Luis Villa napisał:
In the end, being able to do make a tinderbox with make distcheck and
CFLAGS+=-Wall -Werror -pedantic -ansi would be so cool ;-)
Would definitely love to have a 'secondary' tinderbox run with
pedantic/wall/werror turned on so
Alan Horkan wrote:
Supporting Autopackage wouldn't adversely affect or favour any
particularly distribution and it would in fact produce packages widely
usable by a whole variety of distributions. There is no Autopackage based
distribution yet (nor is there likely to be).
Note that
On 7/18/05, Ikke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 15:29 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
One way to go about is to require all involved modules to have an
RPM .spec file, and jhbuild can be instructed to build and
install RPMs, but most probably this will not be accepted
Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
One way to go about is to require all involved modules to have an
RPM .spec file, and jhbuild can be instructed to build and
install RPMs, but most probably this will not be accepted
practice in GNOME. Or am I wrong?
This is not practical, especially with so many
On 7/18/05, Rob Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
One way to go about is to require all involved modules to have an
RPM .spec file, and jhbuild can be instructed to build and
install RPMs, but most probably this will not be accepted
practice in GNOME. Or am I wrong?
On 7/18/05, Matthias Clasen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 20:23 +0200, Ikke wrote:
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 13:28 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
I think the advantages of adding make distcheck are bigger than the
disadvantages.
OK, but what are they? :)
Making sure
Colin Walters wrote:
What's so difficult about jhbuild? Couldn't we make just make it easier
(such as having jhbuild autodetect stuff in /usr and adjust
PKG_CONFIG_PATH)?
jhbuild is pretty damned difficult. Whenever I want to get a jhbuild
going on a machine it invariably requires about a
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 20:24 +0200, Ikke wrote:
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 13:41 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
I think the advantages of adding make distcheck are bigger than the
disadvantages.
In the end, being able to do make a tinderbox with make distcheck
and
CFLAGS+=-Wall -Werror
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 15:22 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
On 7/18/05, Behdad Esfahbod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Luis Villa wrote:
build/distribute daily snapshots like we used to. Not sure if that is
worth the admitted pain of nagging/etc., especially since ATM no one
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 13:15 -0400, Matthias Clasen 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.
On 7/18/05, Ikke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 13:15 -0400, Matthias Clasen 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
You didn't even read that bug report, obviously!
Actually, I did read it, which does not imply I agree with the final
conclusion.
But beyond that '-ansi -pedantic' have a really wrong meaning. They
mean, to both GCC and the compiler:
Turn off all extensions beyond the C89 standard
Which
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 19:24 +0200, Ikke wrote:
I think the advantages of adding make distcheck are bigger than the
disadvantages.
In the end, being able to do make a tinderbox with make distcheck and
CFLAGS+=-Wall -Werror -pedantic -ansi would be so cool ;-)
-Wall -ansi -pedantic -Werror is
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 15:13 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Luis Villa wrote:
build/distribute daily snapshots like we used to. Not sure if that is
worth the admitted pain of nagging/etc., especially since ATM no one
is offering to build daily snaps.
I'm willing to
36 matches
Mail list logo
