From: Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be>
To: buildroot@busybox.net
Subject: [Buildroot] Analysis of build results for 2014-04-19
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:02:02 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5357818A.4090104@mind.be> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <435816036.13835416.1398243362765.JavaMail.root@openwide.fr>
On 23/04/14 10:56, Jeremy Rosen wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> Also, by having a much smaller percentage, I'm wondering if we have
>>> a
>>> lot less chances to trigger cases that require a fairly significant
>>> combination of options to be produced.
>>
>> Do we actually have examples of such a situation, that a combination
>> of
>> packages leads to an error? It's more likely to lead to runtime
>> errors I
>> expect.
>>
>
>
> on a side note, if the autobuilder has selected a high number of packages
> so far, there are probably many "low number of packages" type of bug
> that it could find. it might be interesting to temporarly set it to a
> low number of packages...
No, the number of packages is randomly selected between 1% and 30/35%.
So about 1 out of 6 builds has less than 5%, i.e. 30 packages. With such
a small percentage, it's extremely likely that the selected packages are
completely unrelated.
However, this makes me realize that with the lower percentages, most
likely all the sub-options of a package will be set to no. With 30%,
there's a decent chance that at least some sub-options are selected, and
at least there is some chance that all of them are selected (though for a
package with 4 suboptions the chance that all are selected is already
less than 1%). Yet another reason not to reduce the percentage any further.
It would probably be a lot better if the configurations would not use
randconfig, but rather a more customised was of selecting a random
configuration. But as usual, that's a lot of work...
Regards,
Arnout
--
Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be
Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286500
Essensium/Mind http://www.mind.be
G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven
LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle
GPG fingerprint: 7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-04-23 9:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-20 6:30 [Buildroot] [autobuild.buildroot.net] Build results for 2014-04-19 Thomas Petazzoni
2014-04-20 8:48 ` [Buildroot] Analysis of build " Thomas Petazzoni
2014-04-20 13:09 ` Mike Zick
2014-04-21 17:35 ` Luca Ceresoli
2014-04-22 20:25 ` [Buildroot] php / snmp / iconv problem Thomas Petazzoni
2014-04-23 1:17 ` Gustavo Zacarias
2014-04-22 16:41 ` [Buildroot] Analysis of build results for 2014-04-19 Arnout Vandecappelle
2014-04-22 20:19 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2014-04-22 22:14 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2014-04-23 7:22 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2014-04-23 8:51 ` Arnout Vandecappelle
2014-04-23 8:56 ` Jeremy Rosen
2014-04-23 9:02 ` Arnout Vandecappelle [this message]
2014-04-23 9:05 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2014-04-23 8:59 ` Thomas Petazzoni
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=5357818A.4090104@mind.be \
--to=arnout@mind.be \
--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