[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       lyx-devel
Subject:    Re: Questions for Uwe once you are back
From:       Uwe_Stöhr <uwestoehr () web ! de>
Date:       2016-01-14 22:32:08
Message-ID: 569821E8.8040802 () web ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

Am 14.01.2016 um 21:22 schrieb Georg Baum:

>> So I still think that creating a new git branch and copying the files
>> from the tar there is the quickest and also safest way - no need to
>> fiddle around with any path.
>
> Here I strongly disagree. By doing this, you have no control over the
> information from the previous builds that is in the cmake cache.
> Therefore it is never sure whether such a build is reproducible (e.g. if
> you re-used the directory to build from git again).

I don't understand. It is up to me to decide which branch becomes 
active. All other branches and their files are invisible for the 
compiler and also for CMake. As I understood it CMake is only necessary 
to tell the compiler where and in which order to take the files from. I 
built this way now for about 2 years. Why do I need to take care of the 
CMake cache? From where do you know that building from a git folder is 
not reproducible? If that would be the case how can people work with git 
in their jobs?

> IMO, we should not release any binary that was built in this way.

I don't like your 100% "basta" statements. Building under Win is 
obviously a bit different than on Unix. Have you ever tried TortoiseGit 
or another Git client under Windows?

 > Instead we should find a different solution which ensures a 100%
 > reproducible build, like we do have for all other platforms.

How do you control the people? Why do you think I don't care to get a 
correct build? When I make a mistake there I will be flooded by user 
complaints.

regards Uwe
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]