Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Christopher Browne wrote:
>
>> It seems to me that there is some value in putting together a script
>> that tries to identify some of the interesting bits of the toolchain.
>
> Yeah; but why not just a bunch of commands, some of which are expected
> to
Christopher Browne wrote:
> It seems to me that there is some value in putting together a script
> that tries to identify some of the interesting bits of the toolchain.
Yeah; but why not just a bunch of commands, some of which are expected
to work on any particular machine, and save the whole out
Quoth [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Eisentraut):
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Lately there have been some buildfarm registrations for "Debian
>> testing/unstable" or similarly described machines. I have kicked back
>> against these, as the description seems to me to be far too open
>> ended.
>
> Then agai
Tom Lane wrote:
> The buildfarm script already seems to record various info such as
> "uname" output on-the-fly. If we could get it to record compiler
> version ("gcc -v" is easy, but equivalent incantations for vendor
> compilers might be harder to find) and a few other facts on-the-fly,
> I thin
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I agree that the lack of a fixed version designation is unsatisfactory.
> I'm not sure whether that is actually necessary, though. If PostgreSQL
> doesn't work on some machine, then that's a problem anyway.
The buildfarm script already seems to re
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
>
>> well I think Andrew is more scared of having multiple boxes on the
>> buildfarm all stating to be "Debian testing" or "Debian unstable" but
>> without much information on how regulary those boxes are actually synced
>> to those moving/changi
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> well I think Andrew is more scared of having multiple boxes on the
> buildfarm all stating to be "Debian testing" or "Debian unstable" but
> without much information on how regulary those boxes are actually synced
> to those moving/changing branches and causing discus
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Lately there have been some buildfarm registrations for "Debian
>> testing/unstable" or similarly described machines. I have kicked back
>> against these, as the description seems to me to be far too open
>> ended.
>
> Then again, it would be usef
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Lately there have been some buildfarm registrations for "Debian
> testing/unstable" or similarly described machines. I have kicked back
> against these, as the description seems to me to be far too open
> ended.
Then again, it would be useful to actually test on Debian
tes
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Lately there have been some buildfarm registrations for "Debian
testing/unstable" or similarly described machines. I have kicked back
against these, as the description seems to me to be far too open ended.
Likewise, I also have difficulty with Gentoo because a version th
10 matches
Mail list logo
