From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Couple of minor buildfarm issues |
Date: | 2005-07-27 02:27:25 |
Message-ID: | 42E6F10D.8010001@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> At one stage I thought of stealing some vertical space for 8 or 10
> columns of 10 pixels or so to show the state of the most importand
> build flag. I still might do that, if I can standardise the OS and
> Compiler info so that they get shorter (e.g. is just knowing that we
> have gcc n.m.o enough, or do we need the longer info produced by gcc
> -v? I'm inclined to reduce it to n.m.o.)
I have reduced some of the clutter from OS names/versions and compiler
names/versions, and can reduce some more in the status column, that
means we will be able to have a bunch of flags indicating what build
criteria were used. I am mainly inclined to flag these:
--enable-cassert
--enable-debug
--enable-nls
--enable-integer-datetimes
--with-perl
--with-python
--with-tcl
--with-krb5
--with-openssl
If we have to drop any for reasons of space it would probably be the
first two. Given the fact there are 9 of these I could make it a simple
set of digits [1-9] and provide a legend, although that might not be
quite so visually pleasing.
Any other bids?
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Fuhr | 2005-07-27 02:27:53 | Re: RESULT_OID Bug |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2005-07-27 00:35:22 | Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC |