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

Re: [libvirt] More CI options



On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 10:55:21AM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 10:30:16PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 10:09:00PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> > > Since the addition of Travis CI builds, there is some more progress
> > > towards more testing.  I was just wondering if anyone was thinking about
> > > (or is already working on) some settings for other CI environments as
> > > well.  For example if configured AppVeyor, we could have MSVC builds as
> > > well.  And there are more of those, I didn't compare all of them, but
> > > the more environments we have, the more build failures we might catch.
> > > Or even test failures, maybe.
> > 
> > FWIW, I would consider building with MSVC a non-goal unless its feature
> > set has massively improved to support the various GCC extensions we rely
> > on. I've always assumed that only target compilers which support GCC C
> > dialect, which basically means GCC or CLang or Intel CC and not MSVC.
> > 
> 
> Apparently, the Appveyor also supports building with MinGW, MSYS2 and
> others.  I mentioned MSVC because I've seen some configure code that
> handles the option.  But what would be nicer is 'any' Windows
> compilation, but we can still do it in Fedora, too.

We already have MinGW builds done in ci.centos.org.  IIUC, MSYS2 is based
on cygwin. At one point someone did some work to make libvirt build on
cygwin, but it was never touched again thereafter, so currently I'd put
that in the unsupported bucket. Thus I'd ignore MSYS2 too unless someone
actually wants to use it, and is also willing to make sure it works on an
ongoing basis

> > Aside from that, I'd be happy to see addition of more CI environments if
> > they cover platforms / combinations we don't already touch. In particular
> > I think it would be useful to see some non-x86 architectures covered.
> > 
> 
> Claudio mentioned the same, but it looks like the hardware is the issue.
> For a simple start, I can run something at home on a aarch64, but that's
> a cheap board, so until it gets proper support in mainline kernel, it's
> not very helpful.  I don't have much spare time on my hands, so I won't
> promise anything, but I might try giving that a spin, just for the fun
> of it.

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 :|


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