SJS wrote:
But when you compile a program, what you ship isn't source, and thus
there's no way to identify a buggy installation with the appropriate
source tree snapshot.
There's decent two ways of fixing that: embed revision information in the
file, or impose a more rigorous release process.
The release process is where this should be. The problem is that most
people assume that "version keyword" is enough information.
For truly repeatable builds, it isn't.
There are lots of things which feed into a build. Compiler versions,
tools versions, os versions, etc. *All* of these need to be tracked and
linked to a version number in order to create a build.
When I'm being *truly* pedantic, I even rebuild the *compilers* being
used to build things. The time used is negligible given a "build farm"
and the time saved when somebody decides that all the development
machines need to be "upgraded" and everything breaks can be quite large.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
