11:01 p.m.
>>>> Raymond Toy <rtoy(a)google.com> writes:
What platforms would those be?
I don't know if we have an official list of platforms we have promised
to support. My guess at it would be linux in different flavours,
Windows, and OSX. If applicable 32- and 64-bit versions of those
above.
On the other hand -- if you today are building 21.5 from sources that
would be a good candidate. The reasoning would be that you need to
know a little about building from sources to set it up and you would
have an interest in that commits won't break "your" version. So
setting up a buildbot slave for that environment would be in your own
interest.
I could probably supply an OSX build bot, depending on what's
required to make it work and run.
First step is always to be able to download the 21.5 source using
mercurial, configure, make and finally make test. When you can do that
on your platform you are ready to install a buildbot slave and try to
get that going. Mail me and we can sort out the details. (Newspeak for
I need to try to remember the details and I rather do that off the
list ;-)
I could do a solaris sparc bot on a somewhat intermittent basis
(monthly or so). I still (gasp!) run on sparc once in a while.
Yes, your buildbot slave does not need to be online always. It will be
some builds missing of course but it will build the latest version
when it gets online. So you don't have to have a server to contribute
although some of the idea gets lost. But it is better to have some
suppport than none at all.
Yours
--
%% Mats
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
7:26 a.m.
New subject: Buildbot now just running a linux client
Mats Lidell writes:
>>>>> Raymond Toy <rtoy(a)google.com> writes:
> What platforms would those be?
I don't know if we have an official list of platforms we have promised
to support. My guess at it would be linux in different flavours,
Windows, and OSX. If applicable 32- and 64-bit versions of those
above.
We definitely support (Open)Solaris and the *BSDs; there may be some
others. Of the usual suspects, I think maybe Mike S runs FreeBSD, R
Sparapani runs Solaris. I might be able to supply a NetBSD build
slave.
More important than wordsize to Mac OS X is system version (personally
I'd at least like to see Snow Leopard and Lion, Lion is supposed to
cause trouble for GNU Emacs and I run anything-but-Lion versions going
back to Tiger, but I know Snow Leopard is in fairly common use).
However, I think that having lots and lots of buildbot slaves is not
necessarily a good thing. What I see on the Python buildbot farm is
that keeping the bots happy takes a lot of effort. I don't think
that's a profitable place for us to put in much effort. Rather I
think we should focus on common configurations that exercise large
blocks of code that differ and aren't really optional. Ie, for the
moment I see the purpose of having the bots is an early warning
system of breakage so we can say to people, "Sorry about the trouble,
but that's probably been fixed already. Try 'hg pull -u', rebuild,
and let us know if you still have a problem."
So, for example, although I've heard that people do have trouble on
Lion, it's not obvious to me that we need more than a Linux build.
Most typos that break the build on Mac OS X will break most POSIX-y
systems (possibly including Cygwin). OTOH, we do need a bot for
(native) Windows, because that code base has a huge component that's
nothing like the Unix counterpart, and APIs that change will break the
build. I would say that on POSIX-y systems we should probably have
both Xt/Athena-ish and GTK+ bots, though, because even though much of
the low-level graphical code is very similar, both the event loops and
the widget management code differ substantially and would be subject
to API skew issues.
If we get "other" bots, maybe we should have a two-tier system. There
would be a set of core bots (as in the previous paragraph) where we
run both a build and the tests (but only report regressions by
default), and the "other" class of bots would be configured to just
report build breakage.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
7:27 a.m.
New subject: Buildbot now just running a linux client
On 7/20/12 3:01 PM, Mats Lidell wrote:
On the other hand -- if you today are building 21.5 from sources that
would be a good candidate. The reasoning would be that you need to
know a little about building from sources to set it up and you would
have an interest in that commits won't break "your" version. So
setting up a buildbot slave for that environment would be in your own
interest.
Yes, I have built xemacs from mercurial sources, but I don't update the
sources too often. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, right? So I just
update when I see something that might affect me.
> I could probably supply an OSX build bot, depending on what's
> required to make it work and run.
First step is always to be able to download the 21.5 source using
mercurial, configure, make and finally make test. When you can do that
on your platform you are ready to install a buildbot slave and try to
get that going. Mail me and we can sort out the details. (Newspeak for
I need to try to remember the details and I rather do that off the
list ;-)
Go ahead and send me the directions, since I've already previously used
mercurial, configure and make. (Not sure if I've done make test, though.)
Ray
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
8:20 p.m.
New subject: Buildbot now just running a linux client
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Rather I
think we should focus on common configurations that exercise large
blocks of code that differ and aren't really optional.
That sounds like a good top priority.
Breadth in build environments also seems useful. For example, I just
set up a virtual machine with Solaris 11 (x64) on it. I can install
both gcc3 and gcc4 from Oracle's package repo. If none of the other
buildbots use gcc3, then I'd lean towards gcc3.
If we get "other" bots, maybe we should have a two-tier
system. There
would be a set of core bots (as in the previous paragraph) where we
run both a build and the tests (but only report regressions by
default), and the "other" class of bots would be configured to just
report build breakage.
Once I've got my Solaris 11 system to the point where it builds 21.5,
I'll ping Mats about getting it plugged into the buildbot system. I'm
happy to run the tests as well as simply do builds. I expect the VM to
be turned off most of the time, but I can run it when I see updates.
Anyone want to tell me which version of gcc to use? (Or suggest other
configuration options?)
mike
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
9:02 p.m.
New subject: Buildbot now just running a linux client
On 7/20/12 11:26 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Mats Lidell writes:
> >>>>> Raymond Toy <rtoy(a)google.com> writes:
>
> > What platforms would those be?
>
> I don't know if we have an official list of platforms we have promised
> to support. My guess at it would be linux in different flavours,
> Windows, and OSX. If applicable 32- and 64-bit versions of those
> above.
We definitely support (Open)Solaris and the *BSDs; there may be some
others. Of the usual suspects, I think maybe Mike S runs FreeBSD, R
Sparapani runs Solaris. I might be able to supply a NetBSD build
slave.
More important than wordsize to Mac OS X is system version (personally
I'd at least like to see Snow Leopard and Lion, Lion is supposed to
cause trouble for GNU Emacs and I run anything-but-Lion versions going
back to Tiger, but I know Snow Leopard is in fairly common use).
I have Snow Leopard and Leopard. I have very intermittent access to
Lion, but I did build xemacs there sometime back. No problems and seems
to work fine.
Ray
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
12:07 a.m.
New subject: Buildbot now just running a linux client
>>>> Stephen J Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
We definitely support (Open)Solaris and the *BSDs; there may be some
others. Of the usual suspects, I think maybe Mike S runs FreeBSD, R
Sparapani runs Solaris. I might be able to supply a NetBSD build
slave.
Adam used virtual machines for many of these systems. If someone want
to start from there Adam has promised to make them available.
More important than wordsize to Mac OS X is system version [...]
Yes. Some OS versions are long lived and must be treated almost as a
separate OS.
[...] I think we should focus on common configurations that exercise
large blocks of code that differ and aren't really optional. [...]
Are you suggesting that we should merge the four build configurations
we have now into one?
So, for example, although I've heard that people do have trouble
on
Lion, it's not obvious to me that we need more than a Linux build.
Most typos that break the build on Mac OS X will break most POSIX-y
systems (possibly including Cygwin).
There have been some Cygwin issues caught by the buildbot but I guess
mostly it is close to the Linux build.
OTOH, we do need a bot for (native) Windows, because that code base
has a huge component that's nothing like the Unix counterpart, and
APIs that change will break the build.
Agreed. I might cover this when reactivating the cygwin slave.
I would say that on POSIX-y systems we should probably have both
Xt/Athena-ish and GTK+ bots, though, [...]
We have four different configurations today. I think they are designed
from another angle. It is easy to add more configurations and cover
different widget sets etc but as you say it might give a maintenance
nightmare. It will also be harder to evaluate the builds if they are
all slightly different. So I'm for redesigning the configurations if
we can find some better, simpler, setup than we are using now.
If we get "other" bots, maybe we should have a two-tier
system. [...]
I hope error reporting can be better with new versions of
buildbot. Currently it is a bit rough.
Yours
--
%% Mats
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
7:54 a.m.
New subject: Buildbot now just running a linux client
Mats Lidell writes:
>>>>> Stephen J Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org>
writes:
> [...] I think we should focus on common configurations that
exercise
> large blocks of code that differ and aren't really optional. [...]
Are you suggesting that we should merge the four build configurations
we have now into one?
Not necessarily. I think that our most active build platforms
currently are probably Xt/Linux, Xt/MacOSX, Windows/Cygwin, and
Windows/native (this last probably only has one active builder, but I
think it's fair to count Vin = 10000, right? ;-)
We have four different configurations today. I think they are
designed
from another angle. It is easy to add more configurations and cover
different widget sets etc but as you say it might give a maintenance
nightmare.
Well, what I want to do is avoid causing annoying delays for frequent
builders. If nobody complains about a platform, we can pay less
attention to its buildbot, that's all.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
4289
days inactive
4291
days old
6 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Mike Kupfer -
Raymond Toy -
Stephen J. Turnbull -
The XEmacs Package Smoketest