[Bese-devel] configs suggestion

[Marco Baringer]

"Chris Capel" <chris at iBankTech.NET> writes:

> Suggestion:
>
> Include a build-config file just for the libs in the base of the ucw
> tree as well as the complete buildconfig in the separate tree. That
> would be much more convenient, I think, for people looking to get or tag
> the dev branch. Then you could just "get" or "tag" the tree directly and
> then do a build-config on the base, instead of getting the
> support--dists tree (which really doesn't work if you want to tag
> ucw--dev anyway). I copied the "dev" configuration from the
> support--dists revision archive into the base of my tagged ucw tree,
> took out the reference to the ucw branch, and made the paths relative to
> the current directory. I also changed iterate to use the bese-2004
> archive, as I don't know the path for asf at boinkor.net--2003p (you might
> either change this in your buildconfig or update your "download" page to
> include this archive's path).

i'll update the download page (been meaning to do that anyway), in
the mean time asf at boinkor.net--2003p is located at:

http://arch.boinkor.net/asf@boinkor.net--2003p

regarding the configs: if the config is in ucw--dev you have to do:

$ tla get ucw--dev 
$ tla buildcfg libs

if the config is in support--dists you have to do:

$ tla get support--dists
$ tla buildcfg dev

while i've no problem adding a libs.dev config to the ucw--dev tree,
i don't see the gain. convince me.

> This wouldn't be useful for releases--you could just keep doing those
> the way you have been.

[do people like the way i do releases currently? could it be better?]

-- 
-Marco
Ring the bells that still can ring.
Forget your perfect offering.
There is a crack in everything.
That's how the light gets in.
     -Leonard Cohen