On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 7:41 PM, Elvis Angelaccio <elvis.angelac...@kdemail.net> wrote: > > > 2016-04-21 3:07 GMT+02:00 Ben Cooksley <bcooks...@kde.org>: >> >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Elvis Angelaccio >> <elvis.angelac...@kdemail.net> wrote: >> > >> > >> > 2016-04-20 23:20 GMT+02:00 Albert Astals Cid <aa...@kde.org>: >> >> >> >> El dimecres, 20 d’abril de 2016, a les 23:00:26 CEST, Elvis Angelaccio >> >> va >> >> escriure: >> >> > 2016-04-20 22:09 GMT+02:00 Albert Astals Cid <aa...@kde.org>: >> >> > > El dimecres, 20 d’abril de 2016, a les 18:42:31 CEST, Elvis >> >> > > Angelaccio >> >> > > va >> >> > > >> >> > > escriure: >> >> > > > Hi, >> >> > > > as many of you already know, KDE has a github mirror in place at >> >> > > > [1]. >> >> > > > I've been playing with travis-ci [2] and I was surprised by how >> >> > > > easy >> >> > > > to >> >> > > >> >> > > use >> >> > > >> >> > > > and how well integrated with github is. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > I think it would be nice to have travis builds for the (mirrored) >> >> > > > repositories that provides a .travis.yml configuration file. The >> >> > > > builds >> >> > > > would run on the travis servers, so no additional overload on the >> >> > > > KDE >> >> > > > infrastructure. There is also virtually nothing to do for KDE >> >> > > > sysadmins. >> >> > > > The project's maintainer is the one in charge to setup the travis >> >> > > > configuration file (if he wants to), in order to have working >> >> > > > builds. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Would this be possible from a technical p.o.v.? I think the KDE >> >> > > > github >> >> > > > account would have to register on the travis website and "sync" >> >> > > > its >> >> > > >> >> > > github >> >> > > >> >> > > > repositories - that's what I had to do with my personal github >> >> > > > account. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > The use cases could be many. For example, on travis I can install >> >> > > >> >> > > optional >> >> > > >> >> > > > dependencies that are not available on our Jenkins installation. >> >> > > > More >> >> > > > details in this post [3]. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > What do you think? >> >> > > >> >> > > I don't see the point in having two CI systems, just help improve >> >> > > the >> >> > > one >> >> > > we >> >> > > have. >> >> > > >> >> > > If you need dependencies, why did you start a new CI system instead >> >> > > of >> >> > > asking >> >> > > for the dependendies to be installed? >> >> > >> >> > Well I did ask, but those deps are not available in the Ubuntu >> >> > repositories >> >> > currently used by Jenkins. >> >> > Maybe a solution could be to install them from source/manually, but >> >> > that >> >> > requires work from the sysadmins, who have already enough in their >> >> > plate. >> >> >> >> I see. Maybe you can offer to help them? >> > >> > >> > Not sure I have enough skills (especially now that we use docker), but I >> > can >> > ceirtainly try. Should I contact Ben? >> >> Docker shouldn't complicate things too much - it's essentially an >> enhanced chroot. >> If you're considering depending on this, have you spoken with the >> Kubuntu packagers regarding getting this (hopefully non-Qt dependent) >> dependency packaged? >> >> If it's Qt based, I do hope it isn't using QMake. > > > They are not Qt based. In Ark we have (optional) tests that relies on > packages such as unrar/rar and unarchiver. Both seems not packaged in the > ubuntu version used by Jenkins. > I'm fine with running these tests only locally on my system, but if there is > something I can do to have them in our CI would be super-awesome.
We run Ubuntu Wily as our base. Have you checked to see whether 16.04 will contain these utilities? I suspect unrar/rar will be missing due to it's proprietary nature. Cheers, Ben > >> >> >> Regards, >> Ben >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > I did not start a new CI, I was basically playing with travis for >> >> > fun. >> >> > But >> >> > then it turned out that it could solve an issue I have. The travis >> >> > infrastrucure is already there, why not use it if one or more >> >> > projects >> >> > could benefit? Seems a win-win to me. >> >> >> >> As a release team member i won't look at the github CI >> >> >> >> I will look at our official one, but you will look at the github one >> >> since >> >> for >> >> you "it's better" >> > >> > >> > I never said it's better. I think it would be a nice addition, doesn't >> > mean >> > that I would stop looking at our main CI >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> I can see this creating problems, like for example build.kde.org >> >> passing >> >> and >> >> githubCI not passing and you getting mad at me because we released >> >> something >> >> that doesn't work. >> > >> > >> > This is a fair point, but see also my previous reply to Luca (the "who >> > cares" part). >> > I can promise you that I won't get mad at you, fwiw :) >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Albert >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > Cheers, >> >> > > >> >> > > Albert >> >> > >> >> > Cheers, >> >> > Elvis >> >> > >> >> > > > Regards, >> >> > > > Elvis >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > [1]: https://github.com/KDE >> >> > > > [2]: https://travis-ci.org/ >> >> > > >> >> > > > [3]: >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > http://www.aelog.org/travis-ci-builds-of-kde-projects-on-archlinux-chroot/ >> >> >> >> >> > > >
