[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ci: pin meson to 0.52.0

[Aaron Conole]

Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson at intel.com> writes:

> On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 10:10:00AM -0500, Aaron Conole wrote:
>> David Marchand <david.marchand at redhat.com> writes:
>> 
>> > On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 1:10 PM Bruce Richardson
>> > <bruce.richardson at intel.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 12:59:35PM +0100, David Marchand wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 12:29 PM Luca Boccassi <bluca at debian.org> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Wed, 2020-01-08 at 12:02 +0100, David Marchand wrote:
>> >> > > > meson 0.53.0 has a compatibility issue [1] with the python 3.5.2 that
>> >> > > > comes
>> >> > > > in Ubuntu 16.04.
>> >> > > > Let's pin meson to 0.52.0 while the fix is being prepared in meson.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > 1:
>> >> > > > https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/issues/6427
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <
>> >> > > > david.marchand at redhat.com
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > ---
>> >> > > >  .ci/linux-setup.sh | 2 +-
>> >> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Acked-by: Luca Boccassi <bluca at debian.org>
>> >> >
>> >> > There is a 0.52.1 version available, so I suppose we can blacklist
>> >> > meson < 0.53 instead.
>> >> > Thought?
>> >> >
>> >> > If noone objects, I will apply a fix by the end of the day.
>> >> >
>> >> Wondering if there is value in using 0.47.1, the minimum version we
>> >> support, to catch potential issues with someone using features from newer
>> >> versions? I suspect there are more people using the latest releases of
>> >> meson than the baseline supported version?
>> >
>> > Testing with a fixed version seems better in a CI, and since we
>> > announce this minimum version, then yes, it makes sense.
>> > I will post a v2.
>> 
>> Why is 0.47.1 still the minimum?  Don't we require features that are
>> introduced as of 0.50?
>> 
> No, it should still work fine, and a quick sanity check tested with 0.47.1
> on my system shows no issues, so I think we are good.
>
> There are some warnings printed about future features when you use a later
> version, but in all cases the extra parameters added are just ignored by
> the older versions, so compatiblity is maintained. Adding 0.47.1 to the CI
> will also help avoid any inadvertent new version requirements from sneaking
> in.

Makes sense to me.  Is there a way to make it whitelist the warnings we
know about already?  It would be nice to have the CI environment be
warning-free (but I don't object to 0.47.1 being a minimum version or
anything).

> /Bruce