Re: efficient use of auto-builder machines (was Re: Bug#43787: changed title, and remade the proposed change)
On Wed, Sep 08, 1999 at 01:58:54PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Huh? As in "Build-Depends: gcc (= 2.7.2)" ? How's this different to
> Bug#41232? Or, rather, how is Bug#41232 lacking?
Bug#41232 is good, though [to take the example from the most recent
message], I still don't see that specifying altgcc is going to buy you
a lot. [Even if there were altgcc packages for non-intel machines, how
do you indicate that the compiler is to be used without including stuff
like PATH=/usr/i486-linuxlibc1/bin:$PATH...?]
> > 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.
>
> No, it's not. It's a clean tidy way of letting a builder say "Yes I
> want debug information" or "No I don't want debug information" rather
> than always trying to give em both.
>
> Having the builder specify whether ey wants debug information and the
> maintainer deciding in advance whether it's possible and reasonable
> to honour that request seems a much more reliable way than having the
> builder mess around with the build process without actually understanding
> what's going on (ie, automatically).
Well, ok.
Since Bug#41232 is looks most of the way defined, and since Bug#43787
doesn't seem to step on it, I withdraw my objection.
--
Raul
Reply to: