On 2/19/21 2:10 PM, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 19/02/2021 13.00, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >> On 2/19/21 12:09 PM, Thomas Huth wrote: >>> We're building a lot of containers in the gitlab-CI that we never use. >>> This takes away network bandwidth and CPU time from other jobs for no >>> use, so let's remove them for now. The individual containers could be >>> re-added later when we really need them. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> >>> --- >>> .gitlab-ci.d/containers.yml | 92 ------------------------------------- >>> 1 file changed, 92 deletions(-) >> >> I'm not enthusiast with this patch because I use various in this list >> from time to time for testing or cross build/disas binaries. > > When I look at our current huge list of containers, I wonder how do we > know which containers still get used (in the sense of not only build), > and which ones are likely already bit-rotten? And why do we need that > many containers? Why both, debian-arm64-test-cross.docker and > debian-arm64-cross.docker and not combine them? And why do we need that > many individual cross-compiler docker files if we already have > debian-all-test-cross.docker that can be used to test most of them? ... > for me, as a docker ignorant, this is all very opaque and some clean up > IMHO could really help here.
debian-arm64-cross.docker is to cross-build QEMU, while debian-arm64-test-cross.docker to cross-build the TCG tests. debian-arm64-test-cross.docker could probably now be replaced by debian-all-test-cross.docker. IIRC the problem we had was on aarch64 hosts many cross-build packages were broken, so we had to restrict them to the bare minimal to be able to cross-build the TCG tests there. >> Not having >> these containers used mainstream probably show the failure of the >> project to add good testing coverage on these targets. Most of them are >> for hobbyist with little time. Removing them will make it even harder >> to add tests. > > Do you really use the docker files from the gitlab registry? I'd rather > expected that people build those locally in case they need them...? TBH I pull from registry 99% of the time. I only build locally if I the mainstream image is missing something, and I want to add what is missing in a patch. But even there once finished I pull from my namespace registry and test with that image, as this is what other will use too. I want to use the same images from our registry, not my local ones. >> Can't we keep them disabled? Or put them in manual mode? > > Well, I guess manual mode is fine, too, as long as they don't waste CPU > cycles and network bandwidth anymore for most people who don't need them. > > Thomas > >
