Re: efficient use of auto-builder machines (was Re: Bug#43787: changed title, and remade the proposed change)
On Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 09:47:32PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 06:12:07PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > Umm, what about libraries that purposely compile -dbg packages? This
> > is a silly idea, it's not a good idea for the autobuilders to muck
> > around with the way the package is meant to be built.
> Good point.
> Of course, this is solvable -- for example, build those packages in a
> different autobuilder environment (perhaps make the cc cover sensitive
> to an environmental variable).
> This would make the autobuilders a bit more complicated -- but we are
> talking about optimizing the autobuilders, so that's probably ok. Also,
> this sort of implementation would yield a far greater speed improvement
> over the short run than your current policy proposal would.
Umm, how do you see your hack as a speed gain when it requires every invocation
of gcc to also invoke perl?!
> But what you're doing right now: optimizing a hack... That's more
> likely to get in the way of the long term solution than anything else.
> [If we had a decent source dependency, etc. design I'm sure what you're
> proposing would fit right in -- with a few minor changes. But if we
> go ahead with the optimization when we're still at hack implementation
> stage we're asking for backwards compatability problems.]
So you are saying that my proposal, one which helps define some build specs,
is a hack, and your suggestion to write a wrapper around gcc to change the
way packages are built by default is not?
This is where I start to ignore everything you say.