[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ci: build and use libabigail 1.6

[Aaron Conole]

David Marchand <david.marchand at redhat.com> writes:

> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 10:40 AM David Marchand
> <david.marchand at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 7:48 PM Aaron Conole <aconole at redhat.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > David Marchand <david.marchand at redhat.com> writes:
>> >
>> > > libabigail 1.2 (at least) reports changes in 'const' property as an ABI
>> > > breakage [1].
>> > > This was fixed upstream in libabigail 1.4 [2], and a bug has been opened
>> > > in launchpad [3].
>> > >
>> > > But for now, build and use the last version 1.6 so that the ABI checks
>> > > can be kept.
>> > >
>> > > 1: https://travis-ci.com/DPDK/dpdk/jobs/287872118#L2242
>> > > 2:
>> > > https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=libabigail.git;a=commitdiff;h=215b7eb4fe8b986fe1cc87d9d8e7412998038392
>> > > 3: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libabigail/+bug/1863607
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand at redhat.com>
>> > > ---
>> >
>> > Does it make sense to base libabigail required ontop of extra packages?
>> > Otherwise some libraries won't get built / checked, no?
>>
>> The only change I see is the pcap driver being enabled.
>> On the principle, I agree that trying to build all possible
>> libraries/drivers is better when checking the ABI.
>> So I'll keep extra_packages yes.
>>
>> I am currently testing that touching extra_packages (well, testing
>> Thomas patches) results in Travis treating the job as a new one (i.e.
>> with no cache).
>
> Travis bases each job cache on the job description:
> https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/caching/
>
> I tested Thomas change on extra_packages content, and the job used the
> old cache.
> My idea was to try to put *extra_packages in an env variable, but it
> does not work (my yaml-fu is lacking).
>
> If there is no easy way, I will invalidate the cache manually.

We don't actually use the EXTRA_PACKAGES variable for anything, so I
guess it's probably okay to change the value and that should invalidate
the cache.  Most of the variables, in fact, could be checked for
non-zero value rather than a specific positive value, and then it's easy
to invalidate the cache by just bumping them.  It's a thought (and
kindof a hack).  Or we can just use the travis CLI tool and delete the
caches (we'll have to do that for the ovsrobot as well, I think).

>
> --
> David Marchand