On 05/23/2010 08:25 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> I don't think anyone thinks rebuilding the builders every 6 months (and
> fixing all the bugs that comes with that) is a good use of their time.
6 in the worst case, 12 in the best.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fe
On 05/24/2010 04:12 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> what would be involved in keeping the vm updated to Fedora N-1 ?
>
> It is built with itself, all except the running kernel behind the mock
> chroot.
>
Oh thats great ... thank you
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admi
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:31:09PM +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
>On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 01:14:07PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> On Mon, 2010-05-24 at 13:01 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> > On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 04:45:49PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> > > People already ready run scripts
On Mon, 2010-05-24 at 23:31 +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> It is certainly possible. Often in experimental state, but
> nevertheless.
> We have the technology for VMs.
>
>
Right, sounds perfect for running a build system under...
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 01:14:07PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-05-24 at 13:01 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 04:45:49PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > > People already ready run scripts to look for FTBFS packages now. Having to
> > > deal with all of
On Mon, 2010-05-24 at 13:01 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 04:45:49PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > People already ready run scripts to look for FTBFS packages now. Having to
> > deal with all of these at once would be a real problem. Doing this this way
> > allows u
On Sun, 2010-05-23 at 17:21 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 05/23/2010 02:25 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't think anyone thinks rebuilding the builders every 6 months (and
> > fixing all the bugs that comes with that) is a good use of their time.
> >
> > -Mike
>
> But a relea
On 05/23/2010 11:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I still carry the scars from when mysql stopped building in brew, a
> couple years ago. Not just rawhide, but brew in general. Eventually
> (after a couple months of bewilderment) it emerged that the build
>
Frustrating I am sure - but it could hav
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 11:11:57PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I could maybe buy "fedora N is built on fedora N-1", but there are two
> problems with that: first, you'd need a separate build farm for every
> branch,
With mock running directly inside Xen VMs as is the case now, then
yes. But with moc
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 04:45:49PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> People already ready run scripts to look for FTBFS packages now. Having to
> deal with all of these at once would be a real problem. Doing this this way
> allows us to spread out the fixing over time.
The problem isn't FTBFS packag
Genes MailLists writes:
> On 05/23/2010 02:25 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
>> I don't think anyone thinks rebuilding the builders every 6 months (and
>> fixing all the bugs that comes with that) is a good use of their time.
> But a release really should be boot strapped with itself once when it
> ge
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 17:21:36 -0400,
Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 05/23/2010 02:25 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't think anyone thinks rebuilding the builders every 6 months (and
> > fixing all the bugs that comes with that) is a good use of their time.
> >
> > -Mike
>
> But
On 05/23/2010 02:25 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
>
> I don't think anyone thinks rebuilding the builders every 6 months (and
> fixing all the bugs that comes with that) is a good use of their time.
>
> -Mike
But a release really should be boot strapped with itself once when it
gets stable en
On Sun, 23 May 2010, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
> On 05/16/2010 11:31 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> > And it causes a load of obscure Koji-specific bugs which require
> > workarounds just for Koji builds. This was the latest one:
> >
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-de...@nongnu.org/msg252
On Sun, 23 May 2010, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
> On 05/16/2010 11:31 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
>> And it causes a load of obscure Koji-specific bugs which require
>> workarounds just for Koji builds. This was the latest one:
>>
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-de...@nongnu.org/msg25242
On 05/16/2010 11:31 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> And it causes a load of obscure Koji-specific bugs which require
> workarounds just for Koji builds. This was the latest one:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-de...@nongnu.org/msg25242.html
> Hopefully those builders can be upgraded to RHE
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> skvidal and I are working on a builder for third party add on repositories
> for Fedora. That builder would be separate from koji and would, indeed
> use a vm for building.
Yet another one? We already have Plague and Koji, what would the new one
offer over those? Would i
On 05/17/2010 07:15 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> We don't by any means have enough programmed testing to be confident
> about this kind of status for more than milestone releases at present.
> Given that, it certainly seems much safer to just build F(N+1) on F(N),
> as proposed earlier.
Yes - t
On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 11:41 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 05/17/2010 11:22 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > otherwise it remains at B2.
> >
> > Just because you manage to build a kernel, or even manage to boot a
> > kernel, doesn't mean it really works. We really need all the testing
> > th
On 05/17/2010 11:22 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> otherwise it remains at B2.
>
> Just because you manage to build a kernel, or even manage to boot a
> kernel, doesn't mean it really works. We really need all the testing
> that goes into a full Fedora release before we trust what is built
> fro
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 11:17:11AM -0400, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 09:59:08AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 09:06:52AM -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
> > > Unless RHEL 6 is needed to get sufficient VM capability, as was said
> > > above would
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 09:35:37AM -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 05/17/2010 04:59 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> > The problem with using a VM created using the latest unstable Fedora
> > is that the latest unstable Fedora might not be working. Perhaps we
> > could always build Fedora n+1
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 09:59:08AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 09:06:52AM -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
> > Unless RHEL 6 is needed to get sufficient VM capability, as was said
> > above would it not be cleaner to compile the entire release in a VM
> > using fedora
On 05/17/2010 04:59 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> The problem with using a VM created using the latest unstable Fedora
> is that the latest unstable Fedora might not be working. Perhaps we
> could always build Fedora n+1 on top of Fedora n.
>
> Rich.
>
What some do is keep several build tr
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 09:06:52AM -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
> Unless RHEL 6 is needed to get sufficient VM capability, as was said
> above would it not be cleaner to compile the entire release in a VM
> using fedora itself?
Last I heard, the builders were going to be changed to use a VM to
Xose Vazquez Perez writes:
> It's a 'must have', for some packages.
>
> e.g. GLIBC:
> http://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob_plain;f=sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/kernel-features.h;hb=HEAD
>
> A lot of features can't be used, because 2.6.18(3.5 years old)
> is the base kernel.
This is not true
On 05/16/2010 05:31 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
>> Is there any plan to build fedora with their own kernel ?
>>
>> It's a 'must have', for some packages.
>>
>> e.g. GLIBC:
>> http://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob_plain;f=sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/kernel-features.h;hb=HEAD
>>
>> A lot of
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 04:38:02PM +0200, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
> On 01/26/2009 07:04, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
>
> from a last year message:
>
> > Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >>> The koji build boxes all run RHEL 5. Getting them upgraded to a not-yet-
> >>> released kernel seems unlikely.
> >>
> >
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 04:38:02PM +0200, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
> On 01/26/2009 07:04, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
>
> from a last year message:
>
> > Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >>> The koji build boxes all run RHEL 5. Getting them upgraded to a not-yet-
> >>> released kernel seems unlikely.
> >>
> >
On 01/26/2009 07:04, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
from a last year message:
> Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> The koji build boxes all run RHEL 5. Getting them upgraded to a not-yet-
>>> released kernel seems unlikely.
>>
>> I know it is a pain, on the other hand it would really improve Fedora 11.
>
> Not o
30 matches
Mail list logo
