<div dir="ltr">Well, I don't think Tim's point stands anyway. It assumes a blank OS on any machine can use configure and cmake, but not squeak. Can windows machines run configure and cmake out of the box?<div><br>
</div><div>Some sort of installation hurdle must be overcome, whether cygwin or new-squeak-based-builder.</div><div><br></div><div>People who are building VM's are a much smaller, more-technically capable group than those who need to deploy something (e.g., an application). If you design your deployment system for the former, it think it won't be useful to the latter.</div>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Frank Shearar <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:frank.shearar@gmail.com" target="_blank">frank.shearar@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">But Tim's point still stands, because deployment is the problem you<br>
solve after having solved the "build it" problem :)<br>
<br>
frank<br>
<br>
On 7 November 2013 20:13, Chris Muller <<a href="mailto:asqueaker@gmail.com">asqueaker@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Deployment should be regarded a separate problem than building.<br>
><br>
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 2:00 PM, tim Rowledge <<a href="mailto:tim@rowledge.org">tim@rowledge.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> One important thing to remember is coping with a first build on a new machine. Having a squeak app that can drive cc to build a vm would be very neat, but if you don't yet have a working vm for a device you could be in trouble.<br>
>> An advantage of the cmake process is that it bypasses that issue. Actually running the configure on the target machine means you get (hopefully!) accurate results when querying facilities. There is also some benefit in a production environment in being able to pass a 'normal' build job to someone else without having to find a squeak buildomatic cognizant person.<br>
>><br>
><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>