Re: Builder update

2013-08-31 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 09:59:49AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 11:41:31 -0400 > Colin Walters wrote: > > > I think the most practical thing is to build version N of self-hosting > > systems using version N-1 (in addition to supporting building N with > > N). If you are using t

Re: Builder update

2013-08-29 Thread Dennis Gilmore
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 El Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:59:44 -0400 Jay Greguske escribió: > On 08/29/2013 01:10 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:05:24 +0300 > > Panu Matilainen wrote: > > > > ...snip... > > > >> Let me say AWESOME one more time :) > > > > :) >

Re: Builder update

2013-08-29 Thread Peter Robinson
> > > I'm not saying this was a bad idea, but the Koji developers now have to > test on both RHEL 6 and Fedora now. Let this message serve as a warning > to them if they did not already know. ;) They already were anyway due to the ARM builders in secondary so they've been getting reports from us

Re: Builder update

2013-08-29 Thread Jay Greguske
On 08/29/2013 01:10 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:05:24 +0300 > Panu Matilainen wrote: > > ...snip... > >> Let me say AWESOME one more time :) > > :) > > I actually didn't know that this was so much of a bottleneck for you > folks. ;( > > Anyhow, glad we can move forward a

Re: Builder update

2013-08-29 Thread Peter Robinson
On 29 Aug 2013 18:12, "Kevin Fenzi" wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:05:24 +0300 > Panu Matilainen wrote: > > ...snip... > > > Let me say AWESOME one more time :) > > :) > > I actually didn't know that this was so much of a bottleneck for you > folks. ;( > > Anyhow, glad we can move forward and

Re: Builder update

2013-08-29 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:05:24 +0300 Panu Matilainen wrote: ...snip... > Let me say AWESOME one more time :) :) I actually didn't know that this was so much of a bottleneck for you folks. ;( Anyhow, glad we can move forward and hopefully get things rolling faster. > > Of course it does mea

Re: Builder update

2013-08-29 Thread Panu Matilainen
On 08/29/2013 11:47 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 29.8.2013 08:05, Panu Matilainen napsal(a): For a practical example of the timescale of this "process" as things have been so far: opt-in install-time macro-expansion of scriptlets was implemented upstream in March 2010 and has been in Fedora since

Re: Builder update

2013-08-29 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 29.8.2013 08:05, Panu Matilainen napsal(a): For a practical example of the timescale of this "process" as things have been so far: opt-in install-time macro-expansion of scriptlets was implemented upstream in March 2010 and has been in Fedora since F15. Yet this relatively trivial thing *

Re: Builder update

2013-08-28 Thread Panu Matilainen
On 08/28/2013 06:35 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 18:22:57 +0300 Panu Matilainen wrote: Hum... a question, or perhaps more like two: Are you planning to move the remaining RHEL-6 builders to Fedora too, and if so, is this (builders running on Fedora ~latest) going to be a permame

Re: Builder update

2013-08-28 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 11:41:31 -0400 Colin Walters wrote: > I think the most practical thing is to build version N of self-hosting > systems using version N-1 (in addition to supporting building N with > N). If you are using the latest to build the latest, you can more > easily get into unstable st

Re: Builder update

2013-08-28 Thread Colin Walters
I think the most practical thing is to build version N of self-hosting systems using version N-1 (in addition to supporting building N with N). If you are using the latest to build the latest, you can more easily get into unstable states. For example, if a new version of the Fedora kernel broke vi

Re: Builder update

2013-08-28 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 18:22:57 +0300 Panu Matilainen wrote: > Hum... a question, or perhaps more like two: > > Are you planning to move the remaining RHEL-6 builders to Fedora too, > and if so, is this (builders running on Fedora ~latest) going to be a > permament arrangement? Quite possibly. L

Re: Builder update

2013-08-28 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 11:21:06 -0400 Jay Greguske wrote: > Are the buildvm builders the bare-metal image builders? No, as the name would suggest they are virtual instances. ;) The buildvmhosts are still rhel6, but the virtual instances/buildvm's are now Fedora 19 (to match up with the Fedora 19

Re: Builder update

2013-08-28 Thread Panu Matilainen
On 08/28/2013 05:42 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, I wanted to let everyone know that as of last night all of the buildvm builders were moved from RHEL 6 to Fedora 19. We do still have some rhel6 builders. Hum... a question, or perhaps more lik

Re: Builder update

2013-08-28 Thread Jay Greguske
On 08/28/2013 10:42 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi all, > > I wanted to let everyone know that as of last night all of the buildvm > builders were moved from RHEL 6 to Fedora 19. We do still have some > rhel6 builders. > > Dennis > -BEGIN P

Builder update

2013-08-28 Thread Dennis Gilmore
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, I wanted to let everyone know that as of last night all of the buildvm builders were moved from RHEL 6 to Fedora 19. We do still have some rhel6 builders. Dennis -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAl