Re: Redefinition of the primary and secondary architectures

On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 12:59:06AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Peter Robinson wrote: > > There will be a slight change that a failure in an arch won't cancel > > the other arches and each one will run to completion (pass/fail) but > > the overall primary task will still fail. > > I don't see how

Re: Redefinition of the primary and secondary architectures

Peter Robinson wrote: > There will be a slight change that a failure in an arch won't cancel > the other arches and each one will run to completion (pass/fail) but > the overall primary task will still fail. I don't see how wasting Koji resources on completing an already failed build helps

Re: Redefinition of the primary and secondary architectures

Peter Robinson wrote: > We are planning to change the way Alternate Architectures (non x86_64) > are handled in terms of "primary" vs "secondary". Let me repost here what I already posted at: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1592#comment:14 There, I wrote: | IMHO, it is entirely

Re: Redefinition of the primary and secondary architectures

>>> On the subject of RISC-V, I'm still plugging away at this. It's >>> rather slow going, but you can take a look at: >>> >>> http://git.annexia.org/?p=fedora-riscv.git;a=summary >>> >>> There is nothing much usable at the moment, and many stumbling blocks. >> >> >> Yes, but this is an

Re: Redefinition of the primary and secondary architectures

On 2016-08-05 05:29, Peter Robinson wrote: On the subject of RISC-V, I'm still plugging away at this. It's rather slow going, but you can take a look at: http://git.annexia.org/?p=fedora-riscv.git;a=summary There is nothing much usable at the moment, and many stumbling blocks. Yes, but

Re: Redefinition of the primary and secondary architectures

>> [1] >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/RedefiningSecondaryArchitectures > > I skimmed all this and I'm still a bit confused. > > Will there be one Koji instance compiling for every (current primary + > current secondary) arch? Or will there be two instances, one for all > primary

Re: Redefinition of the primary and secondary architectures

>> We are planning to change the way Alternate Architectures (non x86_64) >> are handled >> in terms of "primary" vs "secondary". The definition of what is >> primary or secondary >> is already handled more in terms of the build artifact outputs (images, >> LiveCDs, >> installers, containers etc)

Re: Redefinition of the primary and secondary architectures

>> All the details of the proposal along with FAQ have been put on a wiki >> page here[1] >> so please go and read it and ask any questions that aren't answered in >> the FAQ here. >> >> Regards, >> Peter >> >> [1] >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/RedefiningSecondaryArchitectures

Re: Redefinition of the primary and secondary architectures

On Fri, 5 Aug 2016 10:30:38 +0200 Florian Weimer wrote: > On 08/04/2016 05:07 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: > > All the details of the proposal along with FAQ have been put on a > > wiki page here[1] > > so please go and read it and ask any questions that aren't answered > > in

Re: Redefinition of the primary and secondary architectures

On 08/04/2016 05:07 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: All the details of the proposal along with FAQ have been put on a wiki page here[1] so please go and read it and ask any questions that aren't answered in the FAQ here. For rawhide, ppc.koji is currently behind primary by two weeks (or even more).

Re: Redefinition of the primary and secondary architectures

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2016-08-04 at 21:02 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: >> On 04/08/16 20:48, Adam Williamson wrote: >> >> > >> > The page says that Koji will be modified to run all the per-arch build >> > tasks to completion even

Re: Redefinition of the primary and secondary architectures

On Thu, 2016-08-04 at 21:02 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 04/08/16 20:48, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > > The page says that Koji will be modified to run all the per-arch build > > tasks to completion even if one fails (as opposed to how it behaves > > now, cancelling all the other arch tasks

Re: Redefinition of the primary and secondary architectures

On 04/08/16 20:48, Adam Williamson wrote: The page says that Koji will be modified to run all the per-arch build tasks to completion even if one fails (as opposed to how it behaves now, cancelling all the other arch tasks as soon as any one fails), but a failure of any of them will still

Re: Redefinition of the primary and secondary architectures

On Thu, 2016-08-04 at 15:56 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 04:07:31PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > > > > > > [1] > > >

Re: Redefinition of the primary and secondary architectures

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 04:07:31PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: >> [1] >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/RedefiningSecondaryArchitectures > > I skimmed all this and I'm still a bit confused. > > Will

Re: Redefinition of the primary and secondary architectures

On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 04:07:31PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > [1] > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/RedefiningSecondaryArchitectures I skimmed all this and I'm still a bit confused. Will there be one Koji instance compiling for every (current primary + current secondary) arch?

Re: Redefinition of the primary and secondary architectures

On Thu, 2016-08-04 at 15:44 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > I think the solid way to address this is to make each architecture > independent and don't stop the build for any arch if any other arch > fails. The total failure state can be figured out once all the arches > have completed and based on

Re: Redefinition of the primary and secondary architectures

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2016-08-04 at 11:41 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: >> On Thu, 2016-08-04 at 16:07 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: >> > >> > Hi All, >> > >> > We are planning to change the way Alternate Architectures (non

Re: Redefinition of the primary and secondary architectures

On Thu, 2016-08-04 at 11:41 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2016-08-04 at 16:07 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > We are planning to change the way Alternate Architectures (non x86_64) > > are handled > > in terms of "primary" vs "secondary". The definition of what is

Re: Redefinition of the primary and secondary architectures

On Thu, 2016-08-04 at 16:07 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > Hi All, > > We are planning to change the way Alternate Architectures (non x86_64) > are handled > in terms of "primary" vs "secondary". The definition of what is > primary or secondary > is already handled more in terms of the build

Re: Redefinition of the primary and secondary architectures

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 4 August 2016 at 11:07, Peter Robinson wrote: > >> All the details of the proposal along with FAQ have been put on a wiki >> page here[1] >> so please go and read it and ask any questions

Re: Redefinition of the primary and secondary architectures

On 4 August 2016 at 11:07, Peter Robinson wrote: > All the details of the proposal along with FAQ have been put on a wiki > page here[1] > so please go and read it and ask any questions that aren't answered in > the FAQ here. > > Regards, > Peter > > [1] >

Redefinition of the primary and secondary architectures

Hi All, We are planning to change the way Alternate Architectures (non x86_64) are handled in terms of "primary" vs "secondary". The definition of what is primary or secondary is already handled more in terms of the build artifact outputs (images, LiveCDs, installers, containers etc) for i686