[dpdk-ci] OBS pull request in pw-ci

Aaron Conole aconole at redhat.com
Thu Jul 16 14:54:02 CEST 2020


Juraj Linkeš <juraj.linkes at pantheon.tech> writes:

> Hi Aaron,
>
> The dpdk community decided that the best place to maintaing the .spec
> and .control files would be in an OBS repository. Luca is currently
> doing that so that's where it comes from. As to how to update it - I
> included the exact string "home:bluca:dpdk" so that it's clear we want
> to use this repo, but it should be handled the same way as
> UPLOAD_GIT_REPO. I didn't see how this is supplied from the code in
> pw-ci, so I assumed it's something that's changed locally. I followed
> the same logic for OBS_SOURCE_PACKAGE and OBS_GIT_URL - the values
> that are there are what we should be using for our use case at this
> point in time.
>
> I have a minor question about the pw-ci repo - is this your personal
> repo (i.e. not maintained by dpdk community)?

I maintain it - but it's publicly accessible / available.  I don't know
what else it means.

> One last thing - we'll talk today about setting up a community OBS
> project (to mirror https://travis-ci.com/github/ovsrobot/dpdk - is
> this actually managed by the community?) in the CI call.

Again, I maintain it - but it's for the community.  Actually the service
that runs the robot is a Red Hat server, but we choose to push it to a
public github and use a public CI so that it is all part of the
community.

I don't know what it means to be community maintained ;)

> Thanks,
> Juraj
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Aaron Conole <aconole at redhat.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 9:14 PM
>> To: Juraj Linkeš <juraj.linkes at pantheon.tech>
>> Cc: ci at dpdk.org
>> Subject: Re: OBS pull request in pw-ci
>> 
>> Aaron Conole <aconole at redhat.com> writes:
>> 
>> > Juraj Linkeš <juraj.linkes at pantheon.tech> writes:
>> >
>> >> Hi Aaron,
>> >>
>> >> Have you had a chance to look at the pull request?
>> >
>> > Only a bit.  I will do something more thorough on Wednesday.
>> 
>> I looked through it and it seems okay.  I'll set it up to do a test run tomorrow,
>> and merge it once that goes well.
>> 
>> If the obs source project changes (right now, it's set to
>> home:bluca:dpdk) how should we update it?  Meaning, where does that variable
>> come from (and if the robot needs to provide one at some point ever, how can
>> we do that)?
>> 
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Juraj
>> >>
>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> From: Aaron Conole <aconole at redhat.com>
>> >>> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 7:32 PM
>> >>> To: Juraj Linkeš <juraj.linkes at pantheon.tech>
>> >>> Cc: ci at dpdk.org
>> >>> Subject: Re: OBS pull request in pw-ci
>> >>>
>> >>> Juraj Linkeš <juraj.linkes at pantheon.tech> writes:
>> >>>
>> >>> > Hi folks,
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I've submitted a PR with OBS changes to pw-ci:
>> >>> > https://github.com/orgcandman/pw-ci/pull/12
>> >>>
>> >>> Cool!  I'll take a look.  I was on PTO, so didn't get a chance yet.
>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I have a couple of points/questions:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > ·        The scripts are using
>> >>> https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:bluca:dpdk/dpdk to fork
>> >>> the debian and
>> >>> > redhat spec and control files.
>> >>>
>> >>> Okay.  A quick look shows that it's configurable, though.  Should be
>> >>> okay.  I refer
>> >>> to:
>> >>>
>> >>> https://github.com/orgcandman/pw-
>> >>> ci/pull/12/commits/93f6baa497c85d7aca36cda6661e90f7a69d4709#diff-
>> >>> e2ab32f32889186bdeb0ab4f0ef55282
>> >>>
>> >>> > ·        We should create a community OBS project (that the community can
>> >>> manage) where the forked packages will be
>> >>> > created and where the build will run (OBS_TARGET_PROJECT in
>> >>> > 3rd-party/dpdk/jenkins-rc)
>> >>>
>> >>> Okay.
>> >>>
>> >>> > o   The project should be configured according to what we want to build -
>> >>> distros/architectures. Can be done via OBS GUI.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > ·        Only after all patches have been submitted to a series branch does
>> the
>> >>> DPDK Jenkins job upload and configure an OBS
>> >>> > package. This means that we'll have a build just for the whole
>> >>> > series, not for
>> >>> each patch. Not sure if this is a problem.
>> >>>
>> >>> The flip side is the amount of time to build.  We'd prefer to build
>> >>> just one at a time.
>> >>>
>> >>> > ·        One thing that doesn't make sense to me is that the DPDK Jenkins job
>> >>> builds dpdk after each patch - is this needed,
>> >>> > since Travis is going to do the same thing anyway?
>> >>>
>> >>> Travis doesn't.  The ovsrobot travis build is configured to cancel a
>> >>> build on a branch if a new one comes.  That way we only build the
>> >>> latest.  Builds on travis take 40+ min to complete, so if a 20-patch
>> >>> series came in, we wouldn't be done building it for more than half a
>> >>> day.  Then if a v2+ is posted in rapid succession, we lost all this
>> >>> time.  So for now, we only build the absolute last patch in the series on
>> Travis.
>> >>>
>> >>> Also, the build server we run the robot on doesn't do the builds
>> >>> anymore because it also got overloaded - so meson and ninja are not
>> >>> the actual meson/ninja but just dummy commands.  :-/  Maybe I should
>> >>> re-enable and see if things improved.
>> >>>
>> >>> > ·        I've added some more comments to the PR itself.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Regards,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Juraj
>> >>>
>> 



More information about the ci mailing list