From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 09:15:25 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [autobuild.buildroot.net] Build results for 2018-03-26 In-Reply-To: <20180327064509.n3kp4rdolibyqwud@sapphire.tkos.co.il> References: <20180327060026.543B0206F3@mail.bootlin.com> <20180327064509.n3kp4rdolibyqwud@sapphire.tkos.co.il> Message-ID: <20180327091525.7e785751@windsurf.home> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 09:45:10 +0300, Baruch Siach wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 08:00:26AM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > > Build statistics for 2018-03-26 > > =============================== > > > > branch | OK | NOK | TIM | TOT | > > 2018.02.x | 194 | 10 | 0 | 204 | > > No reports on master. The web interface is also not showing recent master > builds. The last master build report is from 2018-03-25 22:43:51 > (http://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/990/990732326160144b71f30938beb3f208cb882ea4/). Well spotted. This is due to commit ea9669fffae7d807ccb3810eb6c662cbb9e8f96f, which removed the core-dependencies target. This target is explicit used by autobuild-run to check if the system has all necessary dependencies, and if not, simply move on to the next build. Due to this, all master configurations fail on "core-dependencies does not exist". The correct target to use now is "dependencies". However, in 2018.02.x, it's still "core-dependencies" that should be used. Using "dependencies" in 2018.02.x would not be good, because "dependencies" triggers the build of host-{tar,xz,ccache,lzip}, and therefore a failure in the build of those packages would not be reported on autobuild.b.o. So I see two options: (1) Re-introduce a "core-dependencies" target, that is the same as the "dependencies" target (2) Tweak the autobuild-run script, and make a special case depending on the branch name: if we're on 2018.02.x, use "core-dependencies", otherwise use "dependencies". Arnout, Peter, any preference ? I'm leaning towards (2) since that's the solution that doesn't pollute Buildroot with unnecessary stuff. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons) Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com