On 29 March 2012 04:20, Paul Larson <paul.lar...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Andrew Stubbs <andrew.stu...@linaro.org> > wrote: >> >> On 28/03/12 03:26, Michael Hope wrote: >>> >>> Hi there. The GCC build time is approaching 24 hours and our five >>> Panda boards can't keep up. Sounds like a good time to LAVAise the >>> toolchain build process a bit more... >> >> >> As you know, I've been doing some experiments with this over the last few >> months. I was blocked by a LAVA bug for a while, but that's been fixed now. >> >> Here's the latest test run (done by Le Chi Thu): >> >> >> http://validation.linaro.org/lava-server/dashboard/permalink/bundle/d73af579ed77957615bd3db2d9055d82bb14299e/ >> >> The test fails due to a GCC build failure: >> >> //usr/include/linux/errno.h:4:23: fatal error: asm/errno.h: No such file >> or directory >> >> This surprised me, because I thought it was using the same rootfs you had >> on the ursa boards, but I've not had time to do anything about it yet. > > Looks like something that can likely be resolved by adding a dependency for > the test. However, if you need, or if it would be more convenient to have a > custom rootfs for this, that's certainly an option. Nothing says we > necessarily have to run these tests on nano, developer, etc... but if it's > interesting to make it possible for later running this as part of a platform > release test, it might be better to make them generic so that they don't > depend on a custom rootfs.
There's a switch coming up due to Precise and hard float and I'll normalise against the Linaro LEB and hwpacks then. developer is a good start but it'll need extra packages added. I'll script those up and spin a new image with them pre-installed rather than add speed and reliability issue of doing it at boot time. -- Michael _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
