Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>
>> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>
>>> Much as I dislike it, we may need to revisit the idea about putting
>>> the flex output files in CVS...
>>>
>
>
>> Why? This only affects developers building from a CVS pull. You don't
>> need any flex at all to build from a tarball. If developers can't
>> install flex on a *nix box they need to get out of the business.
>>
>
> I wonder if it would be helpful to have a buildfarm option whereby
> it would fetch the latest nightly-snapshot tarball and use that instead
> of a CVS pull. This would have the dual advantage of actually testing
> builds from tarballs and requiring less stuff on the buildfarm machine.
> It wouldn't be useful for more-than-once-a-day builds, but a lot of
> the machines only build that often anyhow.
>
>
>
That is certainly doable. It would be in effect a forced run, because we
would have no notion of what had changed. Presumably, this would only be
for HEAD - we don't do daily snapshots of the back branches, do we?
cheers
andrew