Running "make distcheck" ensures that we have CLEANFILES and uninstall
rules setup correctly, as well as validating VPATH builds succeeed.
Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com>
---
.travis.yml | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
diff --git a/.travis.yml b/.travis.yml
index 3f26a1eeee..4bdf034829 100644
--- a/.travis.yml
+++ b/.travis.yml
@@ -6,8 +6,13 @@ matrix:
include:
- compiler: gcc
dist: precise
+ # Special scenario to run distcheck, so we don't waste time duplicating
+ # work in all the other scenarios. Doesn't work on precise due to the
+ # CVE-2012-3386 flaw being present on that Ubuntu version
- compiler: gcc
dist: trusty
+ script:
+ - make -j3 distcheck
- compiler: clang
dist: precise
- compiler: clang
--
2.14.3
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-listOn Fri, 2018-02-23 at 12:00 +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> Running "make distcheck" ensures that we have CLEANFILES and uninstall
> rules setup correctly, as well as validating VPATH builds succeeed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com>
> ---
> .travis.yml | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/.travis.yml b/.travis.yml
> index 3f26a1eeee..4bdf034829 100644
> --- a/.travis.yml
> +++ b/.travis.yml
> @@ -6,8 +6,13 @@ matrix:
> include:
> - compiler: gcc
> dist: precise
> + # Special scenario to run distcheck, so we don't waste time duplicating
> + # work in all the other scenarios. Doesn't work on precise due to the
> + # CVE-2012-3386 flaw being present on that Ubuntu version
> - compiler: gcc
> dist: trusty
> + script:
> + - make -j3 distcheck
> - compiler: clang
> dist: precise
> - compiler: clang
This will override the default script, and make it so the
precise/gcc build only runs distcheck rather than the usual all,
check, syntax-check. So we need something else.
My first idea was to have something like
matrix:
include:
- compiler: gcc
dist: precise
env:
- OS=precise
- compiler: gcc
dist: trusty
env:
- OS=trusty
- compiler: clang
dist: precise
env:
- OS=precise
- compiler: clang
dist: trusty
env:
- OS=trusty
- compiler: clang
os: osx
env:
- OS=macos
script:
- make -j3 && if [ "$OS" != "macos" ]; then make -j3 syntax-check && make -j3 check; fi && if [ "$OS" = "trusty" ]; then make -j3 distcheck; fi
with the new env variable being introduced because, for whatever
reason, Travis defines $TRAVIS_OS_NAME for telling Linux and macOS
apart but no equivalent for telling precise and trusty apart :/
However, I've later realized that precise has already been EOL'd
for almost a year and is already in the process of being (slowly)
decommissioned on Travis too. So I say just rip out the damn
obsolete thing already and move on with our lives :)
--
Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 04:02:19PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > On Fri, 2018-02-23 at 12:00 +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > Running "make distcheck" ensures that we have CLEANFILES and uninstall > > rules setup correctly, as well as validating VPATH builds succeeed. > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> > > --- > > .travis.yml | 5 +++++ > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/.travis.yml b/.travis.yml > > index 3f26a1eeee..4bdf034829 100644 > > --- a/.travis.yml > > +++ b/.travis.yml > > @@ -6,8 +6,13 @@ matrix: > > include: > > - compiler: gcc > > dist: precise > > + # Special scenario to run distcheck, so we don't waste time duplicating > > + # work in all the other scenarios. Doesn't work on precise due to the > > + # CVE-2012-3386 flaw being present on that Ubuntu version > > - compiler: gcc > > dist: trusty > > + script: > > + - make -j3 distcheck > > - compiler: clang > > dist: precise > > - compiler: clang > > This will override the default script, and make it so the > precise/gcc build only runs distcheck rather than the usual all, > check, syntax-check. So we need something else. Yes, that's intentional and not a problem IMHO. 'check' is run as part of 'distcheck' so that's a non-issue. Running syntax-check in all 5 scenarios isn't buying us anything, as the syntax-check rules don't depend on what is installed in the host. IOW, running syntax-check in 1 scenario is sufficient to get us the coverage we need. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 15:06 +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > - compiler: gcc > > > dist: precise > > > + # Special scenario to run distcheck, so we don't waste time duplicating > > > + # work in all the other scenarios. Doesn't work on precise due to the > > > + # CVE-2012-3386 flaw being present on that Ubuntu version > > > - compiler: gcc > > > dist: trusty > > > + script: > > > + - make -j3 distcheck > > > > This will override the default script, and make it so the > > precise/gcc build only runs distcheck rather than the usual all, > > check, syntax-check. So we need something else. > > Yes, that's intentional and not a problem IMHO. > > 'check' is run as part of 'distcheck' so that's a non-issue. > > Running syntax-check in all 5 scenarios isn't buying us anything, > as the syntax-check rules don't depend on what is installed in the > host. IOW, running syntax-check in 1 scenario is sufficient to get > us the coverage we need. Okay, fair enough. The change still "obfuscates" the Travis configuration though, because now you can't just look at a single script entry but you have to explode the matrix in your head and convince yourself you're covering all bases, so I'm not too happy with it. Moreover, there was a whole thing about just dropping support for precise (as Canonical already did) and making our lives easier later in the mail, but you snipped it without replying... -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 04:35:32PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 15:06 +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > - compiler: gcc > > > > dist: precise > > > > + # Special scenario to run distcheck, so we don't waste time duplicating > > > > + # work in all the other scenarios. Doesn't work on precise due to the > > > > + # CVE-2012-3386 flaw being present on that Ubuntu version > > > > - compiler: gcc > > > > dist: trusty > > > > + script: > > > > + - make -j3 distcheck > > > > > > This will override the default script, and make it so the > > > precise/gcc build only runs distcheck rather than the usual all, > > > check, syntax-check. So we need something else. > > > > Yes, that's intentional and not a problem IMHO. > > > > 'check' is run as part of 'distcheck' so that's a non-issue. > > > > Running syntax-check in all 5 scenarios isn't buying us anything, > > as the syntax-check rules don't depend on what is installed in the > > host. IOW, running syntax-check in 1 scenario is sufficient to get > > us the coverage we need. > > Okay, fair enough. The change still "obfuscates" the Travis > configuration though, because now you can't just look at a single > script entry but you have to explode the matrix in your head and > convince yourself you're covering all bases, so I'm not too happy > with it. I don't think we've got so many different scenarios here that understanding it is a real problem > Moreover, there was a whole thing about just dropping support for > precise (as Canonical already did) and making our lives easier > later in the mail, but you snipped it without replying... Opps, I'm not in favour of dropping precise, because I think it is useful to get coverage on older distros. Travis is what I use for testing complex patch series before submission, so I like it to have a useful mix of vintage OSs, not only the very latest that is largely the same as what I build on locally already. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 15:41 +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > Running syntax-check in all 5 scenarios isn't buying us anything, > > > as the syntax-check rules don't depend on what is installed in the > > > host. IOW, running syntax-check in 1 scenario is sufficient to get > > > us the coverage we need. > > > > Okay, fair enough. The change still "obfuscates" the Travis > > configuration though, because now you can't just look at a single > > script entry but you have to explode the matrix in your head and > > convince yourself you're covering all bases, so I'm not too happy > > with it. > > I don't think we've got so many different scenarios here that understanding > it is a real problem It's not a massive hurdle, but it's still cognitive load that I'd rather not have to take on. See my first reply for a way of achieving the same result in a much more explicit and easy to grasp manner. > > Moreover, there was a whole thing about just dropping support for > > precise (as Canonical already did) and making our lives easier > > later in the mail, but you snipped it without replying... > > Opps, I'm not in favour of dropping precise, because I think it is useful > to get coverage on older distros. Travis is what I use for testing complex > patch series before submission, so I like it to have a useful mix of vintage > OSs, not only the very latest that is largely the same as what I build on > locally already. Support for precise is going to be dropped by Travis in two months either way: https://blog.travis-ci.com/2017-08-31-trusty-as-default-status So we can keep it around for the time being if you want, but we're going to have this very same conversation again pretty soon :) -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 04:53:17PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 15:41 +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > Running syntax-check in all 5 scenarios isn't buying us anything, > > > > as the syntax-check rules don't depend on what is installed in the > > > > host. IOW, running syntax-check in 1 scenario is sufficient to get > > > > us the coverage we need. > > > > > > Okay, fair enough. The change still "obfuscates" the Travis > > > configuration though, because now you can't just look at a single > > > script entry but you have to explode the matrix in your head and > > > convince yourself you're covering all bases, so I'm not too happy > > > with it. > > > > I don't think we've got so many different scenarios here that understanding > > it is a real problem > > It's not a massive hurdle, but it's still cognitive load that > I'd rather not have to take on. See my first reply for a way of > achieving the same result in a much more explicit and easy to > grasp manner. > > > > Moreover, there was a whole thing about just dropping support for > > > precise (as Canonical already did) and making our lives easier > > > later in the mail, but you snipped it without replying... > > > > Opps, I'm not in favour of dropping precise, because I think it is useful > > to get coverage on older distros. Travis is what I use for testing complex > > patch series before submission, so I like it to have a useful mix of vintage > > OSs, not only the very latest that is largely the same as what I build on > > locally already. > > Support for precise is going to be dropped by Travis in two months > either way: > > https://blog.travis-ci.com/2017-08-31-trusty-as-default-status > > So we can keep it around for the time being if you want, but we're > going to have this very same conversation again pretty soon :) Actually we should not wait until then, as it leaves our stable branches with a travis config that would not work and would need fixing. So we should drop it now really Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.