| 1 |
On 12/04/2016 12:47 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 4 Dec 2016 16:58:26 +0000 |
| 3 |
> Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> On 12/03/2016 05:31 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 13:13:36 +0000 |
| 7 |
>>> Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>>> On 12/03/2016 10:41 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 10 |
>>>>> On Sat, 3 Dec 2016 10:35:32 +0100 |
| 11 |
>>>>> Patrice Clement <monsieurp@g.o> wrote: |
| 12 |
>>>>> |
| 13 |
>>>>>> Friday 02 Dec 2016 14:10:27, Michał Górny wrote : |
| 14 |
>>>>>>> Hi, everyone. |
| 15 |
>>>>>>> |
| 16 |
>>>>>>> I've heard multiple times about various tinderbox projects being |
| 17 |
>>>>>>> started by individuals in Gentoo. In fact, so many different projects |
| 18 |
>>>>>>> that I've forgotten who was working on most of them. |
| 19 |
>>>>>>> |
| 20 |
>>>>>>> I know that Toralf is doing tinderboxing for most of the stuff. |
| 21 |
>>>>>>> What other projects do we have there? What is their status? |
| 22 |
>>>>>>> |
| 23 |
>>>>>>> Is there anything we could try to integrate with pull requests to get |
| 24 |
>>>>>>> a better testing? |
| 25 |
>>>>>>> |
| 26 |
>>>>>>> -- |
| 27 |
>>>>>>> Best regards, |
| 28 |
>>>>>>> Michał Górny |
| 29 |
>>>>>>> <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
| 30 |
>>>>>> |
| 31 |
>>>>>> Continuous integration is all the rage these days and tinderboxing is the |
| 32 |
>>>>>> obvious way to go concerning Gentoo. AFAIK, Toralf is the only contributor |
| 33 |
>>>>>> doing tinderboxing out of his own will. In reality, we should have a team of |
| 34 |
>>>>>> devs looking after our own tinderboxes instead of relying on the community. |
| 35 |
>>>>>> |
| 36 |
>>>>>> I'm wondering if we could start a donation campain for this project and ask |
| 37 |
>>>>>> people if they've got spare machines laying around. I know a lot of folks are |
| 38 |
>>>>>> reading this mailing list so maybe asking on gentoo-dev first for a start would |
| 39 |
>>>>>> be appropriate. |
| 40 |
>>>>> |
| 41 |
>>>>> Hardware is not the problem. Lack of software is. |
| 42 |
>>>>> |
| 43 |
>>>> |
| 44 |
>>>> Have you considered using openQA[1] like openSUSE[2] and Fedora[3] do |
| 45 |
>>>> instead of reinventing the wheel? |
| 46 |
>>>> |
| 47 |
>>>> [1] http://open.qa/ |
| 48 |
>>>> [2] https://openqa.opensuse.org/ |
| 49 |
>>>> [3] https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/ |
| 50 |
>>> |
| 51 |
>>> Do you by any chance happen to know how it maps to our needs? |
| 52 |
>>> At a first glance it seems quite tangential. |
| 53 |
>>> |
| 54 |
>> |
| 55 |
>> Depends on what you want to test. I guess openQA would be a very good |
| 56 |
>> solution if you want to test a snapshot of the tree against the most |
| 57 |
>> common scenarios for example |
| 58 |
>> |
| 59 |
>> - todays snapshot with plasma5 |
| 60 |
>> - todays snapshot with gnome3 |
| 61 |
>> - todays snapsnot with lxqt |
| 62 |
>> - ... |
| 63 |
>> - todays snapshot with a few tests against popular console packages |
| 64 |
>> * can gcc build small C test files? |
| 65 |
>> * does bash work? |
| 66 |
>> * does coreutils popular tools work as expected? |
| 67 |
>> |
| 68 |
>> |
| 69 |
>> Having such scenarios in place is probably a more realistic testing |
| 70 |
>> approach than simply build everything with random USE flags just for the |
| 71 |
>> sake of build coverage. |
| 72 |
> |
| 73 |
> I'm looking for something I could tell 'build this package on this |
| 74 |
> commit (pull request)', optionally with some USE flags adjustment. |
| 75 |
> And I'd like it to be fast, i.e. don't bother rebuilding whole KDE |
| 76 |
> libraries every time a pull request requiring them is updated. |
| 77 |
|
| 78 |
FAST? have you read about 'tup'? |
| 79 |
http://gittup.org/tup/ |
| 80 |
|
| 81 |
I'm not sure you are interested in a streamlined build system, just for |
| 82 |
CI/tinderbox, but tup is as smart/fast as it gets. |
| 83 |
|
| 84 |
hth, |
| 85 |
James |
| 86 |
|
| 87 |
|
| 88 |
> |
Archives