[sugar] Tinderbox for building Sugar
Marco Pesenti Gritti
Mon Feb 12 10:49:40 EST 2007
On Mon, 2007-02-12 at 10:18 -0500, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote:
> > A couple of thoughts about it:
> > * I think it should only cover the sugar platform, not his dependencies
> > since we don't have a lot of controls on them and base should be built
> > only occasionally anyway. (i.e. we should cover sugar-jhbuild build
> > only)
> Isn't it still useful to know whether base has been broken -- whether or
> not we have control of upstream? New users are going to have to build
> base first anyway, right? And doesn't a broken base prevent new users
> from building sugar at all?
Yeah it would be useful to know it. I don't mind having them in the
tinderbox... I guess I just don't want to consider these high priority
blockers, as build issues on the platform modules should be considered,
otherwise it would end up being too much of a time sink for me.
New users will have to build base unless they have rawhide or
equivalent. I think for base modules we should really use stable
revisions or tarballs by default, to avoid the head issues.
More information about the Sugar-devel