On 2/26/25 09:11, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 26/02/2025 08.54, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
On 2/26/25 08:01, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 26/02/2025 07.54, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
The tests are using a now archived Fedora29 release. Switch to the
most recent Fedora41 release.
Signed-off-by: Cédric Le Goater <c...@redhat.com>
---
tests/functional/test_ppc64_powernv.py | 6 +++---
tests/functional/test_ppc64_pseries.py | 6 +++---
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tests/functional/test_ppc64_powernv.py b/tests/functional/
test_ppc64_powernv.py
index 685e2178ed78..a9da7905366e 100755
--- a/tests/functional/test_ppc64_powernv.py
+++ b/tests/functional/test_ppc64_powernv.py
@@ -18,9 +18,9 @@ class powernvMachine(LinuxKernelTest):
good_message = 'VFS: Cannot open root device'
ASSET_KERNEL = Asset(
- ('https://archives.fedoraproject.org/pub/archive/fedora-secondary/'
- 'releases/29/Everything/ppc64le/os/ppc/ppc64/vmlinuz'),
- '383c2f5c23bc0d9d32680c3924d3fd7ee25cc5ef97091ac1aa5e1d853422fc5f')
+ ('https://archives.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora-secondary/'
+ 'releases/41/Everything/ppc64le/os/ppc/ppc64/vmlinuz'),
+ 'eca627adbe42437cacea169beeb4c3c12a5cfbca1a6b1ba5218d28139d2143c4')
I think we should rather avoid the very latest and greatest Fedora URLs here...
they will be invalid in a couple of months after Fedora 43 has been released.
And if we keep switching the test assets all the time, this will make it more
difficult to bisect regressions in the future.
Thomas
So we should point to the latest archive (fedora38) then ?
Either that, or simply keep the f29 kernel ... what do we gain by switching to
a newer one here? Is it testing more hardware?
Yes. Usually HW support is added gradually to the kernel and
the later one offers better support.
Any how, that's fine, f29 works good enough.
Thanks,
C.
Thomas
