1 |
Hi Sam, |
2 |
|
3 |
On 1/16/19 2:59 PM, Sam Pfeiffer wrote: |
4 |
> Hello, |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Given it's the first time I touch Fedora it took a bit of time to get it working (also I had some DNS issues where I couldn't use dnf). |
7 |
> |
8 |
> But it's done. |
9 |
|
10 |
Wow, great job! |
11 |
|
12 |
> |
13 |
> You can check out the jobs at: |
14 |
> |
15 |
> For amd64 (Job called bootstrap_on_fedora_rap_off, Dockerfile <https://github.com/awesomebytes/gentoo_prefix_ci/blob/master/initial_bootstrap/Dockerfile.fedora> of the job): https://dev.azure.com/12719821/12719821/_build/results?buildId=451> For x86 (Job called bootstrap_on_fedora_rap_off, Dockerfile <https://github.com/awesomebytes/gentoo_prefix_ci_32b/blob/master/initial_bootstrap/Dockerfile.fedora> of the job): https://dev.azure.com/12719821/12719821/_build/results?buildId=450 |
16 |
> |
17 |
> In 5-6h they should be finished. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> In general all the builds are here: https://dev.azure.com/12719821/12719821/_build?definitionId=2&_a=summary |
20 |
> |
21 |
> Given this seems to be running quite nicely. Should I add automated emails when builds fail? |
22 |
> I can do it either adding a script that does it or via the CI interface (I think). |
23 |
> I won't always be able to check it out quick and make a bug report, so maybe someone else would like to receive the emails about the failures. |
24 |
|
25 |
It does make sense to have more than a single person be notified about build results, |
26 |
at least on failures - but I do have no strong meaning about the tooling here. |
27 |
|
28 |
And yes, I do have build jobs here as well that will never ever fit into some free cloud, |
29 |
but their results would do. |
30 |
|
31 |
Thanks! |
32 |
/haubi/ |
33 |
|
34 |
> |
35 |
> |
36 |
> |
37 |
> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 11:28 PM Michael Haubenwallner <haubi@g.o <mailto:haubi@g.o>> wrote: |
38 |
> |
39 |
> On 1/16/19 2:23 AM, Sam Pfeiffer wrote: |
40 |
> > Hello Michael, |
41 |
> > |
42 |
> > Yeah, just tell me which base distro do you want and I'll add a nightly job with that one. I just need to find a Docker image for it. |
43 |
> |
44 |
> It doesn't really matter, just not Ubuntu (or anything else that does 'multiarch'). |
45 |
> I would suggest Fedora though... |
46 |
> |
47 |
> > |
48 |
> > Will the final Gentoo Prefix, once bootstrapped, be any different from the current one I'm bootstrapping? |
49 |
> |
50 |
> Yes: It does not contain sys-libs/glibc and sys-kernel/linux-headers. |
51 |
> |
52 |
> > (To know if I should also publish automated releases of the bootstrapped Gentoo Prefix). |
53 |
> |
54 |
> Haven't recognized that you do 'publish automated releases', nice! |
55 |
> |
56 |
> As Prefix/Guest is stronger bound to the host OS compared to Prefix/RAP, |
57 |
> binary releases don't feel that useful here - at least to myself. |
58 |
> |
59 |
> Instead, besides x86_64, also x86 (32bit) would be nice - simply using 'linux32': |
60 |
> $ PREFIX_DISABLE_RAP=yes linux32 ./bootstrap-prefix.sh /target/prefix noninteractive |
61 |
> |
62 |
> Thanks a lot! |
63 |
> /haubi/ |
64 |
> |
65 |
> > |
66 |
> > |
67 |
> > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019, 04:38 Michael Haubenwallner <haubi@g.o <mailto:haubi@g.o> <mailto:haubi@g.o <mailto:haubi@g.o>> wrote: |
68 |
> > |
69 |
> > Hi Sammy, |
70 |
> > |
71 |
> > because of Ubuntu inside these build slaves I do understand you currently |
72 |
> > perform Prefix RAP bootstraps only - as this is the default anyway. |
73 |
> > |
74 |
> > Do you see a chance to perform Prefix Guest bootstraps as well, |
75 |
> > even if that would require something other distro than Ubuntu? |
76 |
> > |
77 |
> > Otherwise, the only difference is to set the PREFIX_DISABLE_RAP=yes |
78 |
> > environment variable when executing bootstrap-prefix.sh. |
79 |
> > |
80 |
> > Thanks! |
81 |
> > /haubi/ |
82 |
> > |
83 |
> > |
84 |
> |
85 |
> |
86 |
> |
87 |
> |
88 |
> -- |
89 |
> * |
90 |
> * |
91 |
> *Sammy Pfeiffer* |
92 |
> PhD Candidate at The Magic Lab within UTS. |