Sanity tested distributions list

Sanity tested distributions list

[Paul Eggleton]

Hi all,

We had some discussions [1] [2] about this last cycle but I don't feel we 
reached a proper conclusion on the list of tested distributions we want to set 
(SANITY_TESTED_DISTROS) and I assume we want to support a few more distros 
(latest versions of Fedora & Ubuntu, presumably?). I'd like to update and re-
post the patch [3] so we can close bug #1096 [4] but for that we need to agree 
on the list.

Thanks,
Paul

[1] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/yocto/2011-August/004699.html

[2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.embedded.poky/6959

[3] http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky-
contrib/log/?h=paule/sanity-distros

[4] http://bugzilla.pokylinux.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1096

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: Sanity tested distributions list

[McClintock Matthew-B29882]

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Paul Eggleton
<paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We had some discussions [1] [2] about this last cycle but I don't feel we
> reached a proper conclusion on the list of tested distributions we want to set
> (SANITY_TESTED_DISTROS) and I assume we want to support a few more distros
> (latest versions of Fedora & Ubuntu, presumably?). I'd like to update and re-
> post the patch [3] so we can close bug #1096 [4] but for that we need to agree
> on the list.

I'm fairly comprehensively testing something close to the edison 1.1.1
release on CentOS 5.5 and Ubuntu 10.04 LTS. We plan on adding more but
maybe not in time for our next release.

-M

Re: Sanity tested distributions list

[Flanagan, Elizabeth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1237 bytes --]

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 7:59 AM, McClintock Matthew-B29882 <
B29882@freescale.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Paul Eggleton
> <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > We had some discussions [1] [2] about this last cycle but I don't feel we
> > reached a proper conclusion on the list of tested distributions we want
> to set
> > (SANITY_TESTED_DISTROS) and I assume we want to support a few more
> distros
> > (latest versions of Fedora & Ubuntu, presumably?). I'd like to update
> and re-
> > post the patch [3] so we can close bug #1096 [4] but for that we need to
> agree
> > on the list.
>
> I'm fairly comprehensively testing something close to the edison 1.1.1
> release on CentOS 5.5 and Ubuntu 10.04 LTS. We plan on adding more but
> maybe not in time for our next release.
>

The autobuilders are on openSuSE 11.4 x86-64 at this point. We lost
I'm testing on Ubuntu 10.10 (with a planned switch over on one dev machine
to openSuSE 12.1)

-b


> -M
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
>



-- 
Elizabeth Flanagan
Yocto Project
Build and Release

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2026 bytes --]

Re: Sanity tested distributions list

[Paul Eggleton]

On Tuesday 06 December 2011 08:54:30 Flanagan, Elizabeth wrote:
> The autobuilders are on openSuSE 11.4 x86-64 at this point. We lost
> I'm testing on Ubuntu 10.10 (with a planned switch over on one dev machine
> to openSuSE 12.1)

Sorry, what did we lose?

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: Sanity tested distributions list

[Flanagan, Elizabeth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 803 bytes --]

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com
> wrote:

> On Tuesday 06 December 2011 08:54:30 Flanagan, Elizabeth wrote:
> > The autobuilders are on openSuSE 11.4 x86-64 at this point. We lost
> > I'm testing on Ubuntu 10.10 (with a planned switch over on one dev
> machine
> > to openSuSE 12.1)
>
>
heh, multitasking.

We've standardized the distro on the ab infrastructure, so we lost the host
testing (for now) that the ab provided. We'll be gaining that back when I
move the ab slaves to VMs, but for the time being, we're only host testing
opensuse on the abs


> Sorry, what did we lose?
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
>
> --
>
> Paul Eggleton
> Intel Open Source Technology Centre
>



-- 
Elizabeth Flanagan
Yocto Project
Build and Release

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1416 bytes --]

Re: Sanity tested distributions list

[Paul Eggleton]

On Tuesday 06 December 2011 15:59:39 McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Paul Eggleton
> <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > We had some discussions [1] [2] about this last cycle but I don't feel
> > we
> > reached a proper conclusion on the list of tested distributions we want
> > to set (SANITY_TESTED_DISTROS) and I assume we want to support a few
> > more distros (latest versions of Fedora & Ubuntu, presumably?). I'd
> > like to update and re- post the patch [3] so we can close bug #1096 [4]
> > but for that we need to agree on the list.
> 
> I'm fairly comprehensively testing something close to the edison 1.1.1
> release on CentOS 5.5 and Ubuntu 10.04 LTS. We plan on adding more but
> maybe not in time for our next release.

I can definitely see a compelling reason to mark CentOS 5.x as supported, but 
the problem with it is it doesn't come with Python 2.6, so BitBake won't work 
out of the box (actually right now it fails before it has a chance to show a 
reasonable error message, which is even worse). We really need a concise set 
of instructions on how to install the external python tarball, at the moment I 
don't think we have these.

Did you need to perform any other special steps on either of these 
distributions?

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: Sanity tested distributions list

[Joshua Lock]

On 12/12/11 09:16, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> I can definitely see a compelling reason to mark CentOS 5.x as supported, but 
> the problem with it is it doesn't come with Python 2.6, so BitBake won't work 
> out of the box (actually right now it fails before it has a chance to show a 
> reasonable error message, which is even worse). We really need a concise set 
> of instructions on how to install the external python tarball, at the moment I 
> don't think we have these.

It's been a while since I wrote them, and therefore since I tested them,
but:
https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Poky/GettingStarted/Dependencies

Joshua
-- 
Joshua Lock
        Yocto Project "Johannes factotum"
        Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: Sanity tested distributions list

[Michael E Brown]

On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 11:16 -0600, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 December 2011 15:59:39 McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Paul Eggleton
> > <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > We had some discussions [1] [2] about this last cycle but I don't feel
> > > we
> > > reached a proper conclusion on the list of tested distributions we want
> > > to set (SANITY_TESTED_DISTROS) and I assume we want to support a few
> > > more distros (latest versions of Fedora & Ubuntu, presumably?). I'd
> > > like to update and re- post the patch [3] so we can close bug #1096 [4]
> > > but for that we need to agree on the list.
> > 
> > I'm fairly comprehensively testing something close to the edison 1.1.1
> > release on CentOS 5.5 and Ubuntu 10.04 LTS. We plan on adding more but
> > maybe not in time for our next release.
> 
> I can definitely see a compelling reason to mark CentOS 5.x as supported, but 
> the problem with it is it doesn't come with Python 2.6, so BitBake won't work 
> out of the box (actually right now it fails before it has a chance to show a 
> reasonable error message, which is even worse). We really need a concise set 
> of instructions on how to install the external python tarball, at the moment I 
> don't think we have these.

EPEL has a python26 RPM which works perfectly well if you add a
~/bin/python symlink to python26. No need to compile python from
scratch.
--
Michael

Re: Sanity tested distributions list

[McClintock Matthew-B29882]

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Paul Eggleton
<paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 December 2011 15:59:39 McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Paul Eggleton
>> <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> > We had some discussions [1] [2] about this last cycle but I don't feel
>> > we
>> > reached a proper conclusion on the list of tested distributions we want
>> > to set (SANITY_TESTED_DISTROS) and I assume we want to support a few
>> > more distros (latest versions of Fedora & Ubuntu, presumably?). I'd
>> > like to update and re- post the patch [3] so we can close bug #1096 [4]
>> > but for that we need to agree on the list.
>>
>> I'm fairly comprehensively testing something close to the edison 1.1.1
>> release on CentOS 5.5 and Ubuntu 10.04 LTS. We plan on adding more but
>> maybe not in time for our next release.
>
> I can definitely see a compelling reason to mark CentOS 5.x as supported, but
> the problem with it is it doesn't come with Python 2.6, so BitBake won't work
> out of the box (actually right now it fails before it has a chance to show a
> reasonable error message, which is even worse). We really need a concise set
> of instructions on how to install the external python tarball, at the moment I
> don't think we have these.
>
> Did you need to perform any other special steps on either of these
> distributions?

I'm not 100% sure what I did to bring up our CentOS box but I think
all I needed was to install python 2.6.

-M

Re: Sanity tested distributions list

[Yury Bushmelev]

2011/12/6 Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>:
> Hi all,
>
> We had some discussions [1] [2] about this last cycle but I don't feel we
> reached a proper conclusion on the list of tested distributions we want to set
> (SANITY_TESTED_DISTROS) and I assume we want to support a few more distros
> (latest versions of Fedora & Ubuntu, presumably?). I'd like to update and re-
> post the patch [3] so we can close bug #1096 [4] but for that we need to agree
> on the list.

BTW, what may I do to add Debian Squeeze (6.0) to supported and tested
distributions list?

-- 
Yury Bushmelev

Re: Sanity tested distributions list

[David Smoot]

 
On Dec 6, 2011, at 9:43 AM, Paul Eggleton wrote:

Hi all,

We had some discussions [1] [2] about this last cycle but I don't feel we 
reached a proper conclusion on the list of tested distributions we want to set 
(SANITY_TESTED_DISTROS) and I assume we want to support a few more distros 
(latest versions of Fedora & Ubuntu, presumably?). I'd like to update and re-
post the patch [3] so we can close bug #1096 [4] but for that we need to agree 
on the list.

Thanks,
Paul

[1] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/yocto/2011-August/004699.html

[2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.embedded.poky/6959

[3] http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky-
contrib/log/?h=paule/sanity-distros

[4] http://bugzilla.pokylinux.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1096

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto

You may not be looking for anecdotal build data but I imagine I'm one of the few building on FC 16.

Through an unintentional upgrade (don't ask), I have built and tested the following combinations to boot on actual hardware built on a Fedora Core 16 host:

On a Routerstation Pro:
Core image minimal
Core image basic
Core image base (both USB Root file system and SD root file system)
demo-image-mediatomb (but mediatomb itself segfaults in initialization)

On a Beagleboard
Core Image Sato (with Linksys USB network adapter functioning)
demo-image-mediatomb (mediatomb does not segfault).

I'm having some trouble on the Atom platform but I think it is operator error, not host platform.

David



David Smoot
davidsmoot@gmail.com