Cyril Brulebois writes:
> Philip Hands (2024-01-26):
>> Philip Hands writes:
>>
>> > How about using '++'?
>>
>> After a little more thought I concluded that '+~' is marginally better,
>> so here's that alternative, just in case anyone agrees with me:
>>
>>
>> https://salsa.debian.org/phi
Philip Hands (2024-01-26):
> Philip Hands writes:
>
> > How about using '++'?
>
> After a little more thought I concluded that '+~' is marginally better,
> so here's that alternative, just in case anyone agrees with me:
>
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/philh/debian-installer/-/commit/f5044026
Philip Hands writes:
> How about using '++'?
After a little more thought I concluded that '+~' is marginally better,
so here's that alternative, just in case anyone agrees with me:
https://salsa.debian.org/philh/debian-installer/-/commit/f5044026b07d8dbf938394193708b33ea811ae2e
Cheers, Phil
Hi Cyril,
Cyril Brulebois writes:
> Hi,
>
> Philip Hands (@philh) (2024-01-24):
>> Merge request !41 was merged
>> Merge request URL:
>> Project:Branches: philh/debian-installer:salsa-abi-fixup to
>> installer-team/debian-installer:master
>> Author: Philip Hands
>
> Commit 931269d99b1595725f
Hi,
Philip Hands (@philh) (2024-01-24):
> Merge request !41 was merged
> Merge request URL:
> https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/debian-installer/-/merge_requests/41
> Project:Branches: philh/debian-installer:salsa-abi-fixup to
> installer-team/debian-installer:master
> Author: Philip Hand
Samuel Thibault (2024-01-23):
> The CI on salsa doesn't manage to build the debian-installer package
> because the signed linux 6.6.13 package is not available yet. Perhaps we
> should turn these build-deps:
>
> linux-image-6.6.13-amd64 [amd64],
> linux-image-6.6.13-arm64 [arm64],
>
Samuel Thibault writes:
> For me it's fine for CI to fall back to the previous kernel for most
> jobs of the pipeline. I guess we'd still want a build job in the
> pipeline that sticks with the requested version, so that we notice in
> case that's not working, without breaking the entire CI pipel
ch is used on buildds.
>
> Ah, fair enough.
>
> I guess in that case I'll need to adjust what I'm doing to detect the
> available versions of kernel that I'm looking for in that patch.
>
> If you're only worried about builds on salsa-CI, same appro
and signed as I
> proposed would allow to be fine with either, while making sure it's the
> signed version which is used on buildds.
Ah, fair enough.
I guess in that case I'll need to adjust what I'm doing to detect the
available versions of kernel that I'm looking for in
Philip Hands, le mar. 23 janv. 2024 16:27:12 +0100, a ecrit:
> Samuel Thibault writes:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > The CI on salsa doesn't manage to build the debian-installer package
> > because the signed linux 6.6.13 package is not available yet.
>
> Is the thing you want to:
> a) be able to build
Samuel Thibault writes:
> Hello,
>
> The CI on salsa doesn't manage to build the debian-installer package
> because the signed linux 6.6.13 package is not available yet.
Is the thing you want to:
a) be able to build d-i on salsa even when we're in version skew,
or
b) do you want to be able t
Hello,
The CI on salsa doesn't manage to build the debian-installer package
because the signed linux 6.6.13 package is not available yet. Perhaps we
should turn these build-deps:
linux-image-6.6.13-amd64 [amd64],
linux-image-6.6.13-arm64 [arm64],
linux-image-6.6.13-686 [i3
The default salsa-ci pipeline for installer-team projects has always
failed for flash-kernel, probably because flash-kernel builds no
arch:amd64 packages.
I recently merged a salsa-ci configuration from josch and switched
flash-kernel to use a a salsa-ci pipeline that used arm64 runners
instead
Hi,
I've been working on making the salsa-CI pipeline[1] work well for
udebs, and now have it setup so that most udeb repos can have this
enabled by simply setting a configuration option[2], without needing to
touch the contents of the repository.
So far I've only done that to repos
Michael Kesper writes:
>> I'm sure there are ways of scripting the above using the gitlab API, so
>> once I've discovered how I'll think about applying similar changes to
>> all our repos -- if you already know how to prod the API, feel free to
>> tell me.
>
> Did you ask on #salsaci?
Not at all
Hi Phil,
On 12.07.19 15:08, Philip Hands wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I just configured salsa-CI pipeline for 'user-setup', and it seems to
> work, so I thought I'd say what was involved so that others can do the
> same for other bits of d-i in a similar manner ... if the
Hi All,
I just configured salsa-CI pipeline for 'user-setup', and it seems to
work, so I thought I'd say what was involved so that others can do the
same for other bits of d-i in a similar manner ... if they get to it
before I do (and also so I don't forget things next time
17 matches
Mail list logo
