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

[Matthias Clasen <mclasen redhat com>]

On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 13:03 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> 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.
> 

It would certainly make tinderbox builds much slower, since e.g.
distchecking gtk requires building the docs.

Matthias