Re: [RFC] Refactor autoconf options and build scripts

[Jean-Marie Lemetayer <jeanmarie dot lemetayer at gmail dot com>]

Hi,

I have made something proper in a new branch `travis_ci`. Here is the
new `.travis.yml`:
https://github.com/jmlemetayer/crosstool-ng/blob/travis_ci/.travis.yml

The white-list stuff is commented because I am not developing in
master for now. It should be uncommented before to create the pull
request.

I have selected only few samples. I think it is better to begin with
few of them, and after add other tested samples (much easier to have a
'all green status').

I have add an `after_failure` handle to display the last 500 lines of
'build.log'. Personally, I will decrease this to the last 200 lines.

Bryan, regarding the two-part test. I think it might be a good idea to
split this into:

    1. A quick build test with a small set of configured samples (or
maybe no samples at all) which could be handle automatically by
travis-ci on each commits / pull request.
    2. A manually trigger longer test with all samples (and maybe
other things to test all combinations) which can be handle by jenkins
or buildbot on private servers.

Regards,
JML

ps: I also have a server which can be used to do jenkins/buildbot
distributed builds.
https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Distributed+builds
http://buildbot.net

2015-09-16 1:21 GMT+02:00 Bryan Hundven <bryanhundven@gmail.com>:
> Jasmin,
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Jasmin J. <jasmin@anw.at> wrote:
>> Bryan,
>>
>>>> May I suggest, that you add a "cat .config" before the "./ct-ng build.2",
>>>> so that we can see what was really built.
>>>
>>> Technically, the .config is in the first 100-ish lines of the build.log
>>> Not sure that having it in the logs twice would be helpful.
>> when you look to
>>   https://travis-ci.org/jmlemetayer/crosstool-ng/jobs/80447516
>> there is no build.log printed and I guess it would be a lot, if we do this.
>>
>>> We also could add the various CT_LOG_* options to be able to be passed
>>> to ct-ng, so for instance you could do:
>>>
>>> ct-ng <sample>
>>> CT_LOG_DEBUG=y CT_LOG_LEVEL_MAX="DEBUG" ct-ng build.2
>> I don't know how much lines this will be at the end. It is always a trade
>> off ... .
>
> one line of:
>
> export CT_blah_blah
>
> in kconfig.mk for each option.
>
>> What I have seen in the log is, that mostly the latest package versions are
>> used. I suggest to add some configs with preset gcc/binutils/... versions to
>> test older packages, too.
>
> Rather then confusing users with different samples using different
> versions, why not just create a separate git repository with the
> samples, then clone the test samples before running the test. Just a
> thought.
>
>> But keep in mind also, that travis-ci will try to build each commit on any
>> branch per default. Before we add travis-ci to master, we should add more
>> restrictions.
>>
>> One could be:
>> # whitelist
>> branches:
>>   only:
>>     - master
>>
>> To skip a build (from the docu page):
>
> Sure.
>
>> If you donât want to run a build for a particular commit, because all you are
>> changing is the README for example, add [ci skip] to the git commit message.
>>
>> Commits that have [ci skip] anywhere in the commit messages are ignored by
>> Travis CI.
>>
>> Pull Requests only:
>> Another solution might be restricting the build to Pull Request and do not
>> build Pushes. We need to check if that is usable.
>>
>> BR
>>    Jasmin
>
>
> All very good info! :)
>
> I think the only downside to travis-ci is that while the build may be
> successful, the toolchain itself can still be totally useless.
>
> What I am looking at is a two part test. One part builds crosstool-ng.
> The second part runs the dejagnu gcc test-suite. The results from that
> test vary, depending on options used and target.
>
> When I researched travis-ci previously, it wasn't able to do this (it
> would take longer then there storage limitations and timeout
> restrictions.
>
> So I started looking at getting a server and setting up jenkins-ci, so
> that I can be in control of the test environment, and a much larger
> storage restriction and no timeouts for tests. (I mean obviously we
> would want to say that the test is dead if it took longer then X
> minutes/hours.)
>
> Just my 2cents...
>
> -Bryan

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq