Re: buildfarm issues

Darcy Buskermolen wrote:

>On Friday 04 March 2005 10:11, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
>>Now that we've been running for a while there are a few buildfarm issues
>>that I need to address.
>>
>>First, do we keep the right data about the members? Essentially, we
>>keep: <operating_system, os_version, compiler, compiler_version,
>>architecture>. For Linux, we genarlly ask for the
>>Distribution/distro-version instead of the OS/os-version. However, that
>>lead to interesting situations - Gentoo for example is so "flexible"
>>that in version 2004.03 you might easily be using kernel version 2.4.x
>>or 2.6.x ... in fact it's almost impossible to tell what might be
>>installed on a Gentoo system, or how it was compiled. So I'm really not
>>sure how we should treat such systems.
>>
>>Second is the fact that systems change over time. People upgrade their
>>machines. I'm considering a facility to allow people to change the
>><os-version,compiler-version> aspects of their registered personality -
>>these will become essentially timestamped pieces of information, so
>>we'll still be able to tie a set of values to a history item.
>>
>>
>
>What about using uname(1), cc -v, etc to glean this information and post it
>with each event logged? I belive you have all this stuff already in the
>config.log that is used already ?
>
>

See previous para - on Linux we want the distro name and version, not
"Linux" plus kernel version. uname doesn't seem to help much there.
Also, I have no idea how portable cc -v is. Can we guarantee to have the
compiler version properly identified on every platform?

cheers

andrew