Daniel, Currently the buildbot only builds the default configuration for most the arches. The issue with adding all the profiles is that there are not enough resources to build them in a timely fashion. Looking at it today and it is currently taking 4 days to build all the branches (this is with some failing to build thus speeding up the builds). If we had enough resources to build the profiles it would be nice.
Travis On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Daniel Golle <dgo...@allnet.de> wrote: > From what I can see the rt305x port is quite stable now and therefore I'd > like > to see downloadable snapshot images for the available rt305x boards. > So I was thinking about what prevents buildbot from building images for > both > ramips profiles, rt305x and rt288x. First I was thinking there could just > be > another buildbot task with another .config file for rt305x and that's it. > > Now I realize that both builds would probably be able to share there > packages, > and as far as I can see that wouldn't even be a problem for kmod* packages > if we > just make sure the .config for both kernels ends up to be similar enough. > To see if this works, I installed kmod-ipv6 on a HW550-3G Rt3052F board > and see > that it works (though the module was compiled with the rt288x profile and > therefore rt288x kernel config). I know that this might not be applicable > for > modules using ramips specific platform details which do differ in rt288x > and > rt3xxx, such as dwc_otg. > > How do you imagine the solution to look like? > From what I can see, the options are: > * merge rt288x with rt305x and try to manage with runtime detection > (+) only one kernel, only one set of modules > (-) increased kernel size would probably make it impossible to use that on > some very resource-constraint rt288x systems > (-) quite a lot of work > > * have seperate package sets for rt2880 and rt305x > (+) easy to do > (-) quite a lot of unneeded redundancy (for buildbot and in terms of > diskspace > on downloads.openwrt.org) > > * make kmod-* packages have the profile name as part of the filename and > have > seperate package lists for each profile > (+) not as difficult > (+) most efficient and no difference in runtime resource consumption > (-) requires changes to the build system > > > Looking forward to your comments! > > > Cheers > > Daniel > _______________________________________________ > openwrt-devel mailing list > openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel >
_______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
