From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 14:47:19 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] Some build failures to solve for volunteers In-Reply-To: References: <20110522171916.0ba1bba7@surf> <20110523142820.14924d4c@surf> Message-ID: <20110523144719.6b79d3b6@surf> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On Mon, 23 May 2011 14:42:12 +0200 Daniel Nystr?m wrote: > > I have no experience with BuildBot, but as far I as could see, > > BuildBot is oriented towards building the same software in the same > > configuration over and over again, for continuous integration. From > > what I could see, it assumes that it has a finite set of build > > configurations, and run them all. > > There's no problem running Buildroot builds with Buildbot. I do > actually have one running here locally for our local needs. :) Sure running Buildroot builds with BuildBot is possible. What I'm questionning is if running *random* builds with BuildBot does make sense. I think BuildBot tracks whether a particular build configuration was building at a time, then no longer building. This only makes sense if the tested build configurations are identical over time. > One could set "make randpackageconfig" as one step of the build > process in the Factory, but that makes it hard to find patterns in the > failing builds, hence my suggestion of one toolchain per slave and all > options enabled. Maybe there's other advantages of random configs? Well "make randpackageconfig" creates a completely random set of package set and options. This allows to test an enormous number of possible configurations. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com