On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 08:21:33PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 26/07/2023 18.19, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > Although they share a common parent, the two msys jobs still have > > massive duplication in their script definitions that can easily be > > collapsed. > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> > > --- > > .gitlab-ci.d/windows.yml | 132 +++++++++++++++------------------------ > > 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 83 deletions(-) > > We originally had different sets of packages in the 32-bit and 64-bit jobs, > to distribute the load between the two jobs ... but it got unified in commit > 14547e0877f3522. Now considering that we are facing timeouts again, we > should maybe rather revert that commit instead of unifying the lists > forever?
IMHO we shouldn't be maintaining package lists at all, because they get stale over time. IOW, I would like to make this job use the package list from lcitool. We could get the same end result, however, but having a package exclude list defined as a variable per job variables: MINGW_TARGET: mingw-w64-i686 MSYSTEM: MINGW32 CONFIGURE_ARGS: --target-list=ppc64-softmmu TEST_ARGS: --no-suite qtest PACKAGE_EXCLUDE: mingw-w64-gtk3 mingw-w64-nettle mingw-w64-zstd > Anyway, before we unify the compiler package name suffix between the two > jobs, I really would like to see whether the mingw Clang builds QEMU faster > in the 64-bit job ... but so far I failed to convince meson to accept the > Clang from the mingw package ... does anybody know how to use Clang with > MSYS2 properly? AFAIK it shouldn't be anything worse than CC=clang ./configure .... if that doesn't work then its a bug IMHO With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
