On Tue, 2004-02-24 at 03:15, Ben Reser wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 02:56:51PM -0600, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> > That's why I want to make a build box that doesn't get used for normal
> > development (which might cause tool impurities). I'm thinking
> > newton.ch.collab.net could be it.
>
> Why not just setup a minimal chroot on a machine with only the minimal
> tools compiled for x86 installed in it. We could even pass this
> directory between developers. As long as we use x86 machines and
> binaries and the developer has root access to a Linux box it should work
> fine. Baring a kernel issue that impacts our release packaging (which I
> highly doubt) this would be an extremely portable way of dealing with
> such issues.
It seems like overkill to me. The only thing that is troublesome is
libtool. In the buildcheck --release code we can do the check for
the correct libtool version and then ask a question:
"""
libtool 1.4.3 detected in <path>. If this is the libtool that comes
with your system it is possible that it has vendor patches applied,
which is known to cause problems. You can find a pristine version
of libtool 1.4.3 here:
<url_to_libtool>
Are you sure that a pristine libtool is being used? [y/n] .
"""
A simple solution that simply reminds the RM what is up. No need
for anything more difficult IMO.
Sander
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Feb 24 08:42:36 2004