Re: Building with musl in CI and the build farm

2024-04-04 Thread Wolfgang Walther
Tom Lane: You'd have to commit a failing patch first to break CI for all other developers. No, what I'm more worried about is some change in the environment causing the build to start failing. When that happens, it'd better be an environment that many of us are familiar with and can test/fix.

Re: Building with musl in CI and the build farm

2024-04-04 Thread Tom Lane
Wolfgang Walther writes: >> That is not the concern here. What I think Peter is worried about, >> and certainly what I'm worried about, is that a breakage in >> SanityCheck comprehensively breaks all CI testing for all Postgres >> developers. > You'd have to commit a failing patch first to break

Re: Building with musl in CI and the build farm

2024-04-04 Thread Wolfgang Walther
Tom Lane: That is not the concern here. What I think Peter is worried about, and certainly what I'm worried about, is that a breakage in SanityCheck comprehensively breaks all CI testing for all Postgres developers. You'd have to commit a failing patch first to break CI for all other develope

Re: Building with musl in CI and the build farm

2024-04-04 Thread Tom Lane
Wolfgang Walther writes: > Peter Eisentraut: >> I think SanityCheck should run a simple, "average" environment, like the >> current Debian one.  Otherwise, niche problems with musl or multi-arch >> or whatever will throw off the entire build pipeline. > I do agree: SanityCheck doesn't feel like

Re: Building with musl in CI and the build farm

2024-04-04 Thread Wolfgang Walther
Peter Eisentraut: On 31.03.24 15:34, walt...@technowledgy.de wrote: I'd rather adapt one of the existing tasks, to avoid increasing CI costs unduly. I looked into this and I think the only task that could be changed is the SanityCheck. I think SanityCheck should run a simple, "average" envi

Re: Building with musl in CI and the build farm

2024-04-04 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 31.03.24 15:34, walt...@technowledgy.de wrote: I'd rather adapt one of the existing tasks, to avoid increasing CI costs unduly. I looked into this and I think the only task that could be changed is the SanityCheck. I think SanityCheck should run a simple, "average" environment, like the

Re: Building with musl in CI and the build farm

2024-04-02 Thread Thomas Munro
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 11:27 AM Wolfgang Walther wrote: > The animal runs in a docker container via GitHub Actions in [2]. Great idea :-)

Re: Building with musl in CI and the build farm

2024-03-31 Thread walther
About building one of the CI tasks with musl: Andres Freund: I'd rather adapt one of the existing tasks, to avoid increasing CI costs unduly. I looked into this and I think the only task that could be changed is the SanityCheck. This is because this builds without any additional features ena

Re: Building with musl in CI and the build farm

2024-03-30 Thread walther
Here's an update on the progress to run musl (Alpine Linux) in the buildfarm. Wolfgang Walther: The animal runs in a docker container via GitHub Actions in [2]. Right now it's still running with --test, until I get the credentials to activate it. The animals have been activated and are repor