Re: Buildfarm issues on specific machines

On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 02:29:08PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <decibel@decibel.org> writes:
> > On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 11:17:29PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> cuckoo [7.3, 7.2]: --enable-nls without OS support
> >> 
> >> This looks like pilot error; but the later branches don't fail on this
> >> machine, so did we change something in this area?
> 
> > Should I just stop using nls on 7.2 and 7.3 or does someone want to poke
> > around with this further?
> 
> I don't intend to look at it; but perhaps someone who cares more about
> the NLS code will ...

Then I guess the question is... is it more valuable to have a working
buildfarm environment for 7.2 and 7.3, or is the obnoxious failure
better to spur someone into looking at it? :) Should this maybe be made
a TODO and I'll adjust my config until someone tackles the TODO?

Also, what do people think about having the buildfarm track different
compile/build options on each environment? ISTM there's value in being
able to change-up config options to make sure that different
combinations work. My thought is having the buildfarm configured so that
it knows what options on a machine should work (based on external
dependancies) and then the script can cycle through different configs.
Of course this means the server would have to do a better job of
tracking per-config-setting info...
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant               decibel@decibel.org 
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"