Jon's assessment is more accurate than what I wrote previously. That's because I was mashing together two issues that really are separate, but are closely related. In my case, I know I was trying to play a game of using minimal disk space, and I played a game at the start where I determined dependencies manually (as I believe install-dep brings in more than a minimal set.) I must have forgotten which copy I had played this game, and then I complained that install-dep is missing things. And when I realized my error, I felt embarrassed for delivering misinformation. I went overboard in attempting to apologize for my error. But the other issue that Jon, you correctly point out, is that Ole neglected to give any heads up that his change requires re-running make install-dep. So maybe someone who is 120% perfect, after seeing that Ole's change does not "just work" would then read the change, and say, "OH, I need to rerun make install-dep."
I think the imperfect solution is that next time, the Heads up should appear, at least on this list. Exactly the way Jon suggests. Burt On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Jon Loeliger <j...@netgate.com> wrote: > Burt and Ole, > > On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 7:26 AM, <otr...@employees.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hmm, so https://gerrit.fd.io/r/#/c/5781/ >>> isn't sufficient? >>> >> > Necessary, yes. Sufficient? No. > > On the other hand... > > On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Burt Silverman <bur...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Ugh, I made a terrible bone head mistake... Possibly I never ran make >> install-dep. Even if I had, I was unaware that it is a good idea to run it >> again, just to be sure, in a case like this. I probably thought it was like >> make bootstrap, where running a 2nd time doesn't help. Apologies to Ed and >> Ole for misinformation. So, Jon, were you in the same boat with me -- >> didn't do a double check of make install-dep? I guess so, because you still >> had the problem after Ole's fix. >> >> Burt >> > > This was precisely the problem here. I'll try to say this as > politely as I can... Wow. That's some blind-siding sh*t. > > So, let's talk about that a bit. > > First, thank you for identifying the issue! This does indeed > fix the build locally, and bring us back to online par. Thank you! > > Second, the notion of requiring repeated running of the make > install-dep target as part of our daily build process from our > CI engine is just not going to happen. NFW. We're not running > anything has root like that. It's a bad idea for many reasons. > > On the flip side, I can make a job that "notices" a change in the > installed packaged requirement and run that as, say, a daily job > and incidentally notice that updates are needed. Sure, polling > like that sucks; an interrupt here with a simple "Heads up! The > install-deps have changed" would have been awesome! > > Thanks, > jdl > >
_______________________________________________ vpp-dev mailing list vpp-dev@lists.fd.io https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
