On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:30:23PM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 9/24/14, 12:20 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote: > >On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 03:16:58AM -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d > >wrote: [...] > >>Building of the compiler/library itself is stable because the > >>autotester won't pass it if they won't build. That isn't the problem > >>- the problem is the package scripts fail. (This is why I want the > >>package building to be part of the autotester.) > > > >That's a good idea. Packaging the compiler toolchain should be > >automated so that we don't have a packaging crisis every other > >release when inevitably some script fails to do what we thought it > >would, or git got itself into one of those wonderful obscure strange > >states that only an expert can untangle. > > We of course agree on all these good things but it's all vacuous > unless somebody champions it. [...]
Wasn't Nick Sabalausky working on an automated (or automatable) packaging script some time ago? Whatever happened with that? T -- "Real programmers can write assembly code in any language. :-)" -- Larry Wall