Re: make distcheck in tinderbox [was Re: make check failures- gnome-vfs, e-d-s, at-spi]
- From: Luis Villa <luis villa gmail com>
- To: Ikke <eikke eikke com>
- Cc: desktop-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: make distcheck in tinderbox [was Re: make check failures- gnome-vfs, e-d-s, at-spi]
- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 15:47:27 -0400
On 7/18/05, Ikke <eikke eikke com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 15:29 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> > One way to go about is to require all involved modules to have an
> > RPM .spec file, and jhbuild can be instructed to build and
> > install RPMs, but most probably this will not be accepted
> > practice in GNOME. Or am I wrong?
> Seriously, then I want ebuilds provided for every package too.
>
> Nah, just kidding. Personally I don't think this is a good idea, as it
> would give one distribution a "higher" state than others, which is not
> what we want (I guess?)
We want more testing. If that means accepting that some distros are
used more than others, then so be it.
Luis
- References:
- make check failures- gnome-vfs, e-d-s, at-spi
- Re: make distcheck in tinderbox [was Re: make check failures- gnome-vfs, e-d-s, at-spi]
- Re: make distcheck in tinderbox [was Re: make check failures- gnome-vfs, e-d-s, at-spi]
- Re: make distcheck in tinderbox [was Re: make check failures- gnome-vfs, e-d-s, at-spi]
- Re: make distcheck in tinderbox [was Re: make check failures- gnome-vfs, e-d-s, at-spi]
- Re: make distcheck in tinderbox [was Re: make check failures- gnome-vfs, e-d-s, at-spi]
- Re: make distcheck in tinderbox [was Re: make check failures- gnome-vfs, e-d-s, at-spi]
- Re: make distcheck in tinderbox [was Re: make check failures- gnome-vfs, e-d-s, at-spi]
- Re: make distcheck in tinderbox [was Re: make check failures- gnome-vfs, e-d-s, at-spi]
- Re: make distcheck in tinderbox [was Re: make check failures- gnome-vfs, e-d-s, at-spi]
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]