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

[Chipzz <chipzz ULYSSIS Org>]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Alan Horkan wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Ikke wrote:
>
> > Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 21:42:09 +0200
> > From: Ikke <eikke eikke com>
> > To: Behdad Esfahbod <behdad cs toronto edu>
> > Cc: Luis Villa <luis villa gmail com>, desktop-devel-list gnome org
> > Subject: Re: make distcheck in tinderbox [was Re: make check failures-
> >     gnome-vfs, e-d-s, at-spi]
> >
> > 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?)
>
> Supporting Autopackage wouldn't adversely affect or favour any
> particularly distribution and it would in fact produce packages widely
> usable by a whole variety of distributions.  There is no Autopackage based
> distribution yet (nor is there likely to be).

What about ximians former build tool, what's it called again? Something
with monkey iirc. That was at least able to produce debs.

kr,

Chipzz AKA
Jan Van Buggenhout
-- 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 UNIX isn't dead - It just smells funny
                           Chipzz ULYSSIS Org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Baldric, you wouldn't recognize a subtle plan if it painted itself pur-
 ple and danced naked on a harpsicord singing 'subtle plans are here a-
 gain'."