Buildroot Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
To: buildroot@busybox.net
Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v5 1/4] autobuild-run: move creation of result directory to run_instance()
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 09:45:23 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190618094523.391e02c2@windsurf> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7971482d-2efd-4bb0-d105-56746c5039d4@mind.be>

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 09:34:54 +0200
Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be> wrote:

> >  - The output in build-end.log does not show any indication that the
> >    overall build failure is caused by the build being non-reproducible.
> >    What build-end.log shows is just a "make legal-info" that ends up
> >    successfully, which is very confusing since the build status is
> >    "failure", but the log doesn't show any sort of failure.
> > 
> >    I think the check_reproducibility() function should at least show
> >    something in the build log.  
> 
>  You can see it through the existence of the "reproducible_results" file.

Yes, I know, I have read the autobuild-run patches before applying
them :-)

Still the immediate thing you click on when you see a failure is the
build log, and when there's no apparent failure it's confusing.

>  But it would indeed be a good idea to use that file as the build log instead of
> the normal log.

Correct.

> >  - The reason of the failures, visible at
> >    http://autobuild.buildroot.net/?submitter=Thomas+Petazzoni+(Bootlin+server)&status=NOK
> >    are just "unknown". We really want to have a better "reason". I
> >    guess the easiest here would be to move the calculation of the
> >    "reason" into autobuild-run instead of having it server-side, as
> >    Arnout has suggested in a separate discussion yesterday.  
> 
>  Ack, that was the plan. The "unkown" is exactly what we expected. I think it's
> OK for a few weeks.

Yes, it is OK for now, but it would be good to work on fixing this.

Best regards,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

  reply	other threads:[~2019-06-18  7:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-06-17  9:34 [Buildroot] [PATCH v5 1/4] autobuild-run: move creation of result directory to run_instance() Atharva Lele
2019-06-17  9:34 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v5 2/4] autobuild-run: initial implementation of check_reproducibility() Atharva Lele
2019-06-17  9:34 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v5 3/4] autobuild-run: initial implementation of do_reproducible_build() Atharva Lele
2019-06-17  9:34 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v5 4/4] autobuild-run: do reproducible builds tests if BR2_REPRODUCIBLE=y Atharva Lele
2019-06-17 18:06 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v5 1/4] autobuild-run: move creation of result directory to run_instance() Thomas Petazzoni
2019-06-18  7:14   ` Thomas Petazzoni
2019-06-18  7:34     ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2019-06-18  7:45       ` Thomas Petazzoni [this message]
2019-06-18  8:25       ` Atharva Lele

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20190618094523.391e02c2@windsurf \
    --to=thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com \
    --cc=buildroot@busybox.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox