On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 10:18 -0500, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote: > On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: > > > A couple of thoughts about it: > > > > * I think it should only cover the sugar platform, not his dependencies > > since we don't have a lot of controls on them and base should be built > > only occasionally anyway. (i.e. we should cover sugar-jhbuild build > > only) > > Isn't it still useful to know whether base has been broken -- whether or > not we have control of upstream? New users are going to have to build > base first anyway, right? And doesn't a broken base prevent new users > from building sugar at all? >
Yeah it would be useful to know it. I don't mind having them in the tinderbox... I guess I just don't want to consider these high priority blockers, as build issues on the platform modules should be considered, otherwise it would end up being too much of a time sink for me. New users will have to build base unless they have rawhide or equivalent. I think for base modules we should really use stable revisions or tarballs by default, to avoid the head issues. Marco _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.laptop.org/mailman/listinfo/sugar
