Ani Sinha <a...@anisinha.ca> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 2:02 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 05:45:15AM +0530, Ani Sinha wrote: >> > And have multiple platform specific branches in bits that have fixes for >> > those >> > platforms so that bits can run there. Plus the existing test can be >> > enhanced to >> > pull in binaries from those branches based on the platform on which it is >> > being >> > run. >> > >> >> What a mess. >> Who is going to be testing all these million platforms? > > I am not talking about branches in QEMU but branches in bits. > If you are going to test multiple platforms, you do need to build bits > binaries for them. There is no way around it. > bits is not all platform independent python. It does have binary executables. > > Currently bits is built only for the x86 platform. Other platforms are > not tested. I doubt if anyone even tried building bits for arm or > mips. I'm not worried about test bits on other targets, but we do run x86 targets on a number of hosts. The current reliance on a special patched host build tool for only one architecture is the problem. If we just download the iso that problem goes away. > It makes sense to try things incrementally once we have something going. > > Lets discuss this on a separate thread. > >> All this does nothing at all to help developers avoid >> bugs and when they do trigger debug the issue. Which is >> after all why we have testing. >> Yes once in a very long while we are going to tweak >> something in the tests, and for that rare occurence >> it makes sense to periodically rebuild everything, >> otherwise code bitrots. >> >> But the test is supposed to run within a VM anyway, let's >> have an image and be done with it. >> >> -- >> MST >> -- Alex Bennée
