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

[Luis Villa <luis villa gmail com>]

On 7/18/05, Matthias Clasen <mclasen redhat com> wrote:
> 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.

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 ;)

Luis