From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 22:19:58 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] Analysis of build results for 2014-04-19 In-Reply-To: <53569BBE.1020707@mind.be> References: <20140420063009.8B76B100DB9@stock.ovh.net> <20140420104812.5bc926a9@skate> <53569BBE.1020707@mind.be> Message-ID: <20140422221958.6240077e@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Arnout Vandecappelle, On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 18:41:34 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > I think there should be two changes to the autobuilders. > > - Reduce the % yes. With the growing number of packages, the number of > selected packages is also becoming unrealistically large. True. Currently the KCONFIG_PROBABILITY is chosen between 1% and 35%. Should I reduce that to 30% ? 25% ? > - If webkit is selected, increase the timeout with an hour. I don't know > how easy that is, though. Not easy with the current horrible script, because the timeout is chosen in a shell script that runs the Python script that actually generates the configuration and runs the build. So let's say that I'll reduce the KCONFIG_PROBABILITY on one side, and increase the timeout for all builds by an hour on the other side. How does that look? > It would of course be even better if the autobuilder would calculate the > timeout based on historical information from build-time.log, but I guess > that's a bit too ambitious :-) Hmmm, sounds fun! But I'd prefer to keep the autobuilder logic smaller in size than Buildroot itself, if possible :-) Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com