Some thoughts about our tests and the build time
bjoern.michaelsen at canonical.com
Wed May 25 11:05:00 UTC 2016
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 08:28:58AM +0200, jan iversen wrote:
> > Along with that, we could then kill the "make build-nocheck" travesty and have
> > 'make' and 'make build' each do the same regardless of if its on toplevel and
> > in a module? Right? Please?
> When we talk about simplifying, it would be good if
> "make" used pr default the same configuration as our release build on the platform.
> Or at the very least have a "make release".
Hmm? There is a differnce between a target and a configuration:
- a different configuration is building things differently
(thus two different config build the _same_ things in different ways)
- a different targets are building different _subsets_ of a configuration
(but the same parts build from different targets are always resulting in the same)
Configurations are controlled by ./configure, while targets are controlled by
make. You by definition cannot change configurations without a rebuild from
scratch (because ~everything could have resulted in different output, and thus
you cant reuse what is there).
> Right now if people change e.g. 5.1 to make a local change and do a build
> they end up with a very different image, and finding the release
> configurations is not that easy.
Yeah, Id suggest to disencourage folks to do that. Working on release
configurations is a pain that should be a reserved priviledge of release
engineers and package maintainers. Everyone else should use the development
build as documented, which are a lot easier, faster and less painful.
 Well, unless you encode the whole configuation in the target location,
which would be madness for the libreoffice config (and cant work with having a
More information about the LibreOffice