Alexandre Julliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ferenc Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Back to the topic: my main point is that the situation is >> best expressed by a Makefile and solved by make. Best as >> opposed to verbosity and complexity. I suppose this is also >> a fairly workable scheme for those who build the winetest >> packages while being transparent for others. And still a >> very straightforward application of make. I can't really >> see sane way to do all of this in maketest without >> triggering superfluous relinks all the time; maybe I miss >> something obvious. > > Again, please explain what you are trying to do from a > high-level point of view; it may well be that this needs > makefile changes, but if so they need to be done cleanly, > which isn't the case with your patch I'm afraid.
Now I got it, hopefully. So: the winetest executable must contain some information about its build process which it can write into the reports. These are: an identification string (usually the checkout date and time but possible something else), a URL where the executable can be downloaded from and a free-format block of other build info like toolchain versions. Some of these are presistent, some more subject to change. -- Feri.
