On 2/3/19 11:55 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 27-11-2018 10:20:52 +0100, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: >> On 11/27/2018 09:37 AM, Sam Pfeiffer wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:20 PM Fabian Groffen <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>>> I don't want to depress this entire discussion, but it would be really >>>> nice if we could somehow interact with special machines people have at >>>> their company or at home. Prefix needs testing on many different >>>> machines (non-Linux) which usually don't exist in docker images. >> >> I second this - and let me add a further aspect here: >> What I know from buildbot setup is that the master does provide (mostly >> shell) >> commands to be executed on the slave. This is fine as long as there is >> limited >> visibility for the master. But when a public buildbot master is being >> hijacked, >> it feels too easy to execute malicious commands even on the slave machines. >> >> So over a buildbot like setup, I would prefer a Jenkins like setup, where the >> master does provide only trigger information to slaves. And even more >> appealing >> would be a standalone slave setup, where the master does just receive the >> build >> logs for the public, without access to slave machines at all. > > So, with this in mind, I've started experimenting, here's my "progress": > > http://bootstrap.prefix.bitzolder.nl/results/
Nice! > The idea is to rsync the result after the bootstrap-prefix.sh call to the > server. I can have setup to be in an "upload" sense. The current call > (which assumes direct access) can be found in the dobootstrap script I > currently use to fire off a bootstrap on a platform: > > http://bootstrap.prefix.bitzolder.nl/dobootstrap (see DOPUBLISH) So I'm wondering how to enable myself to provide logs for some more CHOSTs. What about rsync + ssh via pecker? > None of these targets are RAP by the way. I think the current CI is > very good at that. Absolutely. However, it would be nice if we could integrate the Linux/RAP results into this overwiew as well - besides the Linux/Guest ones, even if they share the same CHOST... Also, just've found https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Prefix/tested where the 'Last tried' column values seem outdated - maybe CI builds can provide more recent dates there as well. > By the way, no bootstraps succeeded recently, so that's the goal to get > that triggered so we can focus on fixing it. Just being able to pull in > the CI success/fail for that would already be a start. FWIW, I've created a gentoo-prefix project with Azure pipelines, but their 6 hours limit is too small for Prefix on Cygwin. So I've added my own Windows VM there: https://dev.azure.com/gentoo-prefix/ci-builds/_build However, I'm not sure if I should keep that for security concerns... BTW, Cygwin 3.0.0-0.8 does have the fork() that works for Gentoo Prefix! Thanks! /haubi/
