[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ci: build and use libabigail 1.6
david.marchand at redhat.com
Tue Feb 18 16:07:45 CET 2020
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 3:55 PM Aaron Conole <aconole at redhat.com> wrote:
> 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 .
> >> > > This was fixed upstream in libabigail 1.4 , and a bug has been opened
> >> > > in launchpad .
> >> > >
> >> > > 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).
What I had in mind was to convert the extra_packages yaml thing into a
string to pass into EXTRA_PACKAGES.
But I did not manage.
About bumping the value, users are likely to be unaware of this step
if they submit a patch touching .travis.yml.
Deleting the caches from ovsrobot if .travis.yml has been touched seems simpler.
On master, I will stick to manual cache invalidation.
More information about the dev