Chaitanya and Todd,
> Do you have 40 different architectures or different versions > of the OS for > which you are building? > if it is more of a thing where you are building 5 different > released versions > of your code for windows XP i386 on 5 different machines but > against one > version of the library, this is one place where I would build > the lib on one > XP machine and SMB share the _resulting_LIB_ to the other 4. > with the caveat > that I don't expect the versions of any other libs on those > machines to affect > the build of the lib you are building. This is an area where ClearCase build really shows its strength. ClearCase experts refer to it as 'wink in'. Basically if the result of a build on one machine can be used in another build on the same or a different machine (because it is the same object file format or it is a common library or the object is identical because the source code change was only to comments) then a build on another machine can 'wink in' the the object/library from the previous build. You can implement the same behaviour with CVS using "gnu make" and committing the objects - but it is a little messy and not as elegant or as comprehensive as the ClearCase distributed build system (but considering the price differential is quite likely easier to justify the effort based on cost/benefit analysis). If we at March Hare Software can ever generate enough sales to cover our (already considerable) costs for developing EVSCM/CVSNT 3.x then this sort of build system would be our next project... Regards, Arthur Barrett
