Hi Sam, On 1/16/19 2:59 PM, Sam Pfeiffer wrote: > Hello, > > 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). > > But it's done.
Wow, great job! > > You can check out the jobs at: > > 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 > > In 5-6h they should be finished. > > In general all the builds are here: > https://dev.azure.com/12719821/12719821/_build?definitionId=2&_a=summary > > Given this seems to be running quite nicely. Should I add automated emails > when builds fail? > I can do it either adding a script that does it or via the CI interface (I > think). > 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. It does make sense to have more than a single person be notified about build results, at least on failures - but I do have no strong meaning about the tooling here. And yes, I do have build jobs here as well that will never ever fit into some free cloud, but their results would do. Thanks! /haubi/ > > > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 11:28 PM Michael Haubenwallner <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On 1/16/19 2:23 AM, Sam Pfeiffer wrote: > > Hello Michael, > > > > 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. > > It doesn't really matter, just not Ubuntu (or anything else that does > 'multiarch'). > I would suggest Fedora though... > > > > > Will the final Gentoo Prefix, once bootstrapped, be any different from > the current one I'm bootstrapping? > > Yes: It does not contain sys-libs/glibc and sys-kernel/linux-headers. > > > (To know if I should also publish automated releases of the > bootstrapped Gentoo Prefix). > > Haven't recognized that you do 'publish automated releases', nice! > > As Prefix/Guest is stronger bound to the host OS compared to Prefix/RAP, > binary releases don't feel that useful here - at least to myself. > > Instead, besides x86_64, also x86 (32bit) would be nice - simply using > 'linux32': > $ PREFIX_DISABLE_RAP=yes linux32 ./bootstrap-prefix.sh /target/prefix > noninteractive > > Thanks a lot! > /haubi/ > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019, 04:38 Michael Haubenwallner <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > > > > Hi Sammy, > > > > because of Ubuntu inside these build slaves I do understand you > currently > > perform Prefix RAP bootstraps only - as this is the default anyway. > > > > Do you see a chance to perform Prefix Guest bootstraps as well, > > even if that would require something other distro than Ubuntu? > > > > Otherwise, the only difference is to set the PREFIX_DISABLE_RAP=yes > > environment variable when executing bootstrap-prefix.sh. > > > > Thanks! > > /haubi/ > > > > > > > > > -- > * > * > *Sammy Pfeiffer* > PhD Candidate at The Magic Lab within UTS.
