On 13/02/19 17:06, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 13-02-2019 12:32:08 +0100, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: >>> So, with this in mind, I've started experimenting, here's my "progress": >>> >>> http://bootstrap.prefix.bitzolder.nl/results/ >> Nice! > 1990-ish nice HTML, but yeah :) > >>> 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? > Yeah, indeed, it will be rsync push to a module (I think I already > enabled that). Not to pecker, but bootstrap.prefix.b.n directly. > Some script-foo processes through cron and then does the analysis, etc. > I think for remote targets (you) we can consider skipping the distfiles. > The original idea I had behind shipping them is to make them available > for the case where distfiles are no longer found. I usually pull them > through my own mirror, but obviously this has the downside of not > checking availability. > > (drop me a private mail, we can discuss the posibilities here to get > your target's results pushed.) > >>> 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... > Yeah, perhaps just putting them aside. I already ran into > LATEST_TREE_YES builds that are not the same as just bootstrapping of > course. However, I think regarding the push I'd like some secrecy here > regarding the access, so that's a slight problem. > >> 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 'Last tried' column values seem outdated - maybe CI builds can provide 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! > Hahaha, that is great news!!! > > Thanks, > Fabian > I did raise the idea of setting up the "prefix-ci"/"prefix-testing" mailing list to get results send to interested parties by email with Michael at FOSDEM - how would you feel about this, Fabian - I'm sure there are users who might find access to the archives or even live updates useful - the #g-prefix IRC channel is moderately active for those of us on it! There are already lists for eg. repo-mirror-CI, we have set up a local list for Kernel project CI and there is also releng-autobuilds .. so there is a precident, if someone can petition Infra to set it up! Best regards,
Michael.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
