Ok (I am reading there is a lot going on for you guys to sort out at the moment).
It sounds like a more stable conversion of Pharo 6.1 for 64 bit would be best to give me a stable platform to run on. In that minimal image - what can I rely on to load code (in trying the 7.0 version it seems like Gofer isn’t there, and I’m now wondering if Metacello isn’t there either) - so I’m wondering how you guys load baselinesOf of configurationsOf? Tim > On 31 Jul 2017, at 14:17, Pavel Krivanek <[email protected]> wrote: > > H Tim > > 2017-07-31 15:07 GMT+02:00 Tim Mackinnon <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>: > Hi Pavel - I’m just revisiting a few of your previous messages on minimal > images as I’m trying to get things working again with Pharo 6.1 now that you > guys have rejigged all of the build pipelines. > > I tried a previous suggestion of: > > For Pharo 6: > https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/job/Pharo-6.0-Update-Step-3.2-Minimal/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/Pharo-minimal-64.zip > > <https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/job/Pharo-6.0-Update-Step-3.2-Minimal/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/Pharo-minimal-64.zip> > For Pharo 7: > https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/view/7.0/job/70-Bootstrap-32bit-Conversion/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/latest-minimal-64.zip > > <https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/view/7.0/job/70-Bootstrap-32bit-Conversion/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/latest-minimal-64.zip> > > However the Pharo 6 version is no longer being built, and it doesn’t seem to > work well with the newer 64bit vm (? I seem to get a load error that I didn’t > have before - although its possible that I’m loading a new pre-req with > metacello and this is tipping it over the edge). > > Anyway - a prev suggestion for 6.x from you was: >> https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/view/6.0-SysConf/job/Pharo-6.0-Step-04-01-ConfigurationOfMinimalPharo/ >> >> <https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/view/6.0-SysConf/job/Pharo-6.0-Step-04-01-ConfigurationOfMinimalPharo/> > However this is a 32bit image. Is there an equivalent 64bit image for 6.1? > OR should I use the Pharo 7 one for now (I guess the minimal image will > probably be pretty stable for a little while as I’m sure the action is higher > up the chain?) > > You should use an image that is bootstrapped, so version from SysConf jobs or > Pharo 7. For Pharo 7 we are preparing a lot of big changes in the kernel so > do not expect it will be stable. We can do a conversion job of of it to > 64-bit version as soon as the CI infrastructure will be on knees again. > > -- Pavel > > > > Tim > > >> On 15 Jul 2017, at 09:35, Pavel Krivanek <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> If you want to stay with Pharo 6 image, you can try the bootstrapped version >> of the minimal image: >> https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/view/6.0-SysConf/job/Pharo-6.0-Step-04-01-ConfigurationOfMinimalPharo/ >> >> <https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/view/6.0-SysConf/job/Pharo-6.0-Step-04-01-ConfigurationOfMinimalPharo/> >> >> -- Pavel >> >> 2017-07-15 10:33 GMT+02:00 Pavel Krivanek <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>: >> Try the Pharo 7 metacello image (=Pharo 7 minimal image that the CI is >> already converting to 64bit). There should be no problem with STON because >> whole Pharo is loaded into it using metacello and filetree. Pharo 6 minimal >> image is done differently (by shrinking) and not so well tested. >> >> For the conversion of 32-bit image to 64-bit image you need a VMMaker image: >> https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/job/Spur-Git-Tracker/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/vmmaker-image.zip >> >> <https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/job/Spur-Git-Tracker/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/vmmaker-image.zip> >> and then evaluate: >> ./pharo generator.image eval "[Spur32to64BitBootstrap new bootstrapImage: >> 'conversion.image'] on: AssertionFailure do: [ :fail | fail resumeUnchecked: >> nil ]" >> >> -- Pavel >> >> >> >> 2017-07-15 10:19 GMT+02:00 Tim Mackinnon <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>: >> Hi Pavel - thanks for getting me to the point where I could even have a >> minimal image. As I’m on the edge of my Pharo knowledge here, I’ll try and >> run with this as best I can. >> >> I’d been using the 6.0 image you suggested to me - but maybe I could use a >> 70 image with Pharo 6 for a while (until the VM diverges) right? >> >> The bit I haven’t quite understood however, is how the 64bit image is >> created - as your reference is to a 32bit version? Is the 64bit one >> converted from 32 in a later stage? (For AWS Lambda I need 64bit) - am I >> right in thinking the pipeline stage after this one is the one you sent me - >> and the travis.yml file shows me what it does? But I can’t see a trivis.yml >> in the conversion stage so I’m not sure how it does that. (Question - how do >> I see what the pipelines do to answer my own questions?) >> >> I was hoping that there was a basic image that got me up to metacello >> baseline level to load git file tree packages/baselines in my own repo as >> well baselines on the internet. The one you sent me is fairly close to that >> (its just missing STON in the image and seems to have an issue with >> resolving undeclared classes that get loaded in - should do a fogbugz on >> that?) >> >> The follow-on from a metacello image is how we can get people to create >> better baselines that give you more minimal loading options (e.g. >> conditionally leave out the test cases perhaps) >> >> Tim >> >>> On 15 Jul 2017, at 08:24, Pavel Krivanek <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Tim, >>> >>> you can base the your work on the bootstrapped image, see >>> https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/view/7.0/job/70-Bootstrap-32bit/ >>> <https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/view/7.0/job/70-Bootstrap-32bit/>, file >>> Pharo7.0-core-*.zip >>> >>> This image does not have a lot of basic components like Monticello or >>> network but it has a compiler so the code can be imported as *.st files. >>> Then we have Pharo7.0-monticello-*.zip which will be easier to use and >>> probably can fit your needs. Monticello and network support are included. >>> But you cannot use baselines nor configurations to load your code. >>> >>> -- Pavel >>> >>> 2017-07-14 9:59 GMT+02:00 Tim Mackinnon <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>>: >>> Hi - buoyed by the success of a minimal image (thanks Pavel), I'm wondering >>> if I can get even smaller. >>> >>> There are lots of .so's in the vm which wouldn't make sense on a server >>> once deployed - sound, maybe libgit ... >>> >>> Is there a list of the essential ones, or tips on what I can strip out of >>> the Linux deployment? I also recall that i can leave out .sources and >>> .changes as well right? >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone
