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, Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 15:54 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 15:22 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> > > On 7/18/05, Behdad Esfahbod <behdad cs toronto edu> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Luis Villa wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > build/distribute daily snapshots like we used to. Not sure if that is
> > > > > worth the admitted pain of nagging/etc., especially since ATM no one
> > > > > is offering to build daily snaps.
> > > >
> > > > I'm willing to do daily tinderbox builds with distcheck and all,
> > > > as soon as you check in your hacks (in jhbuild, right?) and I
> > > > don't get a notice from the maintainers of facilities I'll be
> > > > using.
> > >
> > > We're not lacking people doing tinderboxing.[1] The thing we're really
> > > missing (which has always been more important than tinderboxing, IMHO)
> > > is for someone to build daily rpms and debs for popular distributions,
> > > so that 'average' users can use rug, yum, or apt to run CVS HEAD every
> > > day.
> >
> > What's so difficult about jhbuild?  Couldn't we make just make it easier
> > (such as having jhbuild autodetect stuff in /usr and adjust
> > PKG_CONFIG_PATH)?
> 
> Processing power. Time.

Also...

HD space. (my jhbuild root takes up roughly as much space as all the
rest of my OS combined.)

Detection/installation of dependencies.

Having to use 'cvs up' to find out if there are new modules.

Installation of the correct .desktop files for gdm and sessions.

Regular problems with builds that fail from 'make clean.'

Finally, distinct evidence that we had way more HEAD users when we
packaged things than now, when we don't. :)

Luis