Am Donnerstag, 14. Januar 2016 um 23:32:08, schrieb Uwe Stöhr <uwesto...@web.de> > 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.
I think, Georg meant that reusing the same build directory for different
configurations
is error prone.
The minimum here would be to remove CMakeCache.txt from the build dir.
> 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?
Again, he means same build dir for different builds. In this sense, the 100%
would get my +1.
> > 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
Kornel
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
