Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: Stable ABI checking (take 2)"):
> It turns out that libxl causes abi-dumper to churn for ~4s or so, which
> isn't ideal. All the other libraries are in the noise.
I think that means making it part of "make check" or something.
> Howe
On 22/02/2021 17:21, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: Stable ABI checking (take 2)"):
>> On 22.02.2021 15:03, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> +1 for option 2, fwiw.
> I'm in favour of option 2.
Option 2 it is then.
>
> Andrew Cooper writes ("Re:
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: Stable ABI checking (take 2)"):
> On 22.02.2021 15:03, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> +1 for option 2, fwiw.
I'm in favour of option 2.
Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: Stable ABI checking (take 2)"):
> As far as RPM is concerned, splitting the two is
On 22.02.2021 17:00, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 22/02/2021 14:37, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 22.02.2021 15:03, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Staging is now capable of writing out an ABI description when the
>>> appropriate tool (abi-dumper) is available.
>>>
>>> We now have to possible cours
On 22/02/2021 14:37, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 22.02.2021 15:03, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Staging is now capable of writing out an ABI description when the
>> appropriate tool (abi-dumper) is available.
>>
>> We now have to possible courses of action for ABI checking in builds.
>>
>> 1) P
On 22.02.2021 15:03, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Staging is now capable of writing out an ABI description when the
> appropriate tool (abi-dumper) is available.
>
> We now have to possible courses of action for ABI checking in builds.
>
> 1) Publish the ABI descriptions on xenbits, update
Hello,
Staging is now capable of writing out an ABI description when the
appropriate tool (abi-dumper) is available.
We now have to possible courses of action for ABI checking in builds.
1) Publish the ABI descriptions on xenbits, update all downstream test
systems to invoke abi-compliance-check
