Re: efficient use of auto-builder machines (was Re: Bug#43787: changed title, and remade the proposed change)
On Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 09:37:19PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> Umm, how do you see your hack as a speed gain when it requires every
> invocation of gcc to also invoke perl?!
I guess that means you didn't read the rest of the message.
It's trivial to rewrite in C, and I offered to do so.
> 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?
No, it's very definitely a hack.
However, like I explained before, it's a hack that doesn't define a new
hack interface which would have to be supported when we do things the
right way.
> This is where I start to ignore everything you say.
Apparently you started to ignore what I had to say at least a couple
messages back?
--
Raul
Reply to: