qemu-trivial
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v2] Re-enable riscv64-debian-cross-container (debian riscv64


From: Alex Bennée
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Re-enable riscv64-debian-cross-container (debian riscv64 is finally usable again!)
Date: Fri, 03 May 2024 11:07:47 +0100

Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com> writes:

> On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 10:16:34AM +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote:
>> Revert "gitlab-ci: Disable the riscv64-debian-cross-container by default"
>> This reverts commit f51f90c65ed7706c3c4f7a889ce3d6b7ab75ef6a.
>> 
>> riscv64 in debian has been non-functioning for almost a year, after the
>> architecture has been promoted to release architecture

is this for trixie or the next release?

>> and all binary
>> packages started to be re-built, making the port not 
>> multi-arch-co-installable
>> for a long time (in debian, multi-arch packages must be of the same version,
>> but when a package is rebuilt on one architecture it gets a version bump 
>> too).
>> Later on, debiah had a long time64_t transition which made sid unusable for
>> quite some time too.  Both such events happens in debian very rarely (like,
>> once in 10 years or so - for example, previous big transition like that was
>> libc5 => libc6 transition).  Now both of these are finished (where qemu is
>> concerned anyway).
>> 
>> Hopefully debian unstable wont be very unstable.  At the very least it is
>> better to have sporadic CI failures here than no riscv64 coverage at all.
>
> IME of running Debian sid in CI pipelines for libvirt, it is
> way too unstable to be used as a gating job. There are periods
> weeks-long when packages fail to install, even for relatively
> mainstream arch targets like x86, let alone a new target like
> riscv.

I think testing can be more stable IME but I agree we still don't want
it gating until we have a stable release.

>
> Running the job by default is sane, but it should not be made
> gating until in a formal Debian release IMHO.
>
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru>
>> ---
>> v2: drop a TODO comment which turned out to be confused, replacing it
>>  with the description why debian riscv64 were unusable.
>> 
>>  .gitlab-ci.d/container-cross.yml | 1 -
>>  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/.gitlab-ci.d/container-cross.yml 
>> b/.gitlab-ci.d/container-cross.yml
>> index e3103940a0..dbffed3f21 100644
>> --- a/.gitlab-ci.d/container-cross.yml
>> +++ b/.gitlab-ci.d/container-cross.yml
>> @@ -77,7 +77,6 @@ riscv64-debian-cross-container:
>>    allow_failure: true
>>    variables:
>>      NAME: debian-riscv64-cross
>> -    QEMU_JOB_OPTIONAL: 1
>>  
>>  s390x-debian-cross-container:
>>    extends: .container_job_template
>> -- 
>> 2.39.2
>> 
>> 
>
> With regards,
> Daniel

-- 
Alex Bennée
Virtualisation Tech Lead @ Linaro



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]