Build_farm suggestion and patch to reduce log output

Vance Lankhaar vance at
Sun Aug 22 03:22:07 GMT 2004

On Sat, 2004-08-21 at 14:27, Paul Green wrote:
> Vance Lankhaar wrote:
> > I think that it would indeed be very nice to have the 
> > log.smbd output next to the stdout, but I really don't think 
> > I have time to do the work necessary to make it happen. 
> > School starts soon and therefore so does homework... That 
> > being said, naturally, I welcome patches :)
> I hear you.  I'll poke around sometime and see what I can do.
> > (also, it should be fairly easy to add a link between the 
> > stdout and the log.smbd sections. If you're interested in 
> > doing that, let me know... I have a few ideas.)
> That would be acceptable -- I'm listening!
> PG

Okay, here's my thinking... in there's a pretty_print_log
method that is essentially two regular expressions, one that calls
make_test_html and one that calls make_action_html.

Currently, build_test.fns generates exactly the same "markings" for
log.smbd output and stdout. As such, the regex for make_test_html
catches them both. If we were to change the markings for one of them, we
could then have a separate functions: make_test_log_html and
make_test_stdout_html or something like that. 

All we would have to do to "co-ordinate" the two would be to save a copy
of the current $id before running the make_test_stdout_html and reset it
afterwards, such that the two "sections" start at the same id. Of
course, we'd have to make sure where was no id collision between the
sections (easily done by using stdout-$id and logsmbd-$id anywhere we
used the id within make_test_{stdout,log}_html.

Metze: this is where you're expertise comes in: there's one thing that
I'd love to have figured out. The main reason I wanted to move the farm
to subversion was that it has revision numbers. Is there a way I can
determine which revision of the build_farm was used to run the build?

I took a quick look at the way it's done in the main samba tree, and it
seems to rely on the fact that svn / svk is installed on the build host,
which I don't think we can assume for the farm. (though, oddly, it seems
that EVERY host has it, since they all report a version number for
samba4 tree).

If nothing else, I guess I could add something to the cron job that
updates the build_farm script which adds a VERSION file, but I'm hoping
that you can tell me a cleaner, nicer way to go about it?

Cheers, Vance

PS: now that I've thought about it, adding a link between the sections
should be DEAD easy... I'll even try to think about doing that tomorrow.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url :

More information about the samba-technical mailing list