make distcheck in tinderbox [was Re: make check failures- gnome-vfs, e-d-s, at-spi]

On 7/18/05, Elijah Newren <newren gmail com> wrote:
> On 7/18/05, Luis Villa <luis villa gmail com> 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 whining obsessively.

> > Sane? Insane?
> Does it matter?  I think it'd be useful, though I'm betting libwnck
> fails and I'll be unable to fix it (I wasn't able to last time I
> tried, but thankfully people smarter than I are handling the
> releases...)

Let me ask the question in a more detailed fashion:
* would it be useful? It was suggested to me that it would make
snapshotting easier (since things would be basically guaranteed to
build in a packagable fashion), but are there reasons past that?

* would it be feasible? I'm not going to test something if it is (1)
likely to be broken 90% of the time and (2) james and thomas are the
only people with enough skills to fix the problems. Nor does forcing
all maintainers to learn more auto* seem like a reasonable use of
anyone's time.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]