Any particular reason not to have a specific make target for the tinderboxen?
Nicholas Clark wrote: > On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 03:02:55PM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote: > >>On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Sean O'Rourke wrote: >> >> >>>On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Andy Dougherty wrote: >> >>>>Now why that [languages] isn't part of the default build, I don't >>>>know. >>> >> >> >>>None of the stuff in languages/ is part of the default build, and I think >>>it should stay that way. It seems like bad form to, by default, build >>>parts of a package that the user may not want to use. >> >>Yes, I agree in general. But the down side is that it's neither built nor >>tested by most users (including the tinderboxes!). On balance, I think we >>should use bad form and build parts that users may not want to use in >>order to give them a workout. > > > For development and testing, I believe that we should exercise (and then > exorcise) all the bugs in all the languages we can find. > > I guess it should be a configuration option of what to build, defaulting to > everything portable. > > Nicholas Clark -- Will "Coke" Coleda
