Re: build.gnome.org

[Martin Pitt <martin pitt ubuntu com>]

Hello Colin, all,

Colin Walters [2013-01-04 13:30 -0500]:
> On Sun, 2012-12-30 at 17:50 +0100, Andre Klapper wrote:
> > http://build.gnome.org/ mentions 3.6 (past), the Fedora one seems to be
> > offline, and the Debian one has not been updated since October.
> 
> There are a couple of things here - one thing I want to emphasize here
> (I mentioned this too in the Boston Summit), is that it's really, really
> important that we keep "jhbuild up to gtk+" working.

Totally agreed. E. g. a few days ago, gtk-doc stopped building (I
filed it as https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=691775), which
completely breaks pretty much everything else.

> It's therefore quite important that we have and maintain jhbuild-based
> autobuilders on at least the latest Ubuntu and
> Fedora/Debian/OpenSUSE/whatever.

We have experimented with that a bit, by building 

  https://jenkins.qa.ubuntu.com/view/Raring/view/JHBuild%20Gnome/

This uses jhbuild to build individual modules on new commits, with
--check. This was mostly a first step to see where we stand, and we
wanted to discuss it on desktop-devel@ soon, how to integrate it with
other efforts like build.gnome.org and ostree, set up notifications,
etc. We got distracted by some other stuff in the meantime, though.

So we currently have 159 modules of which some 30 are
unstable/failing. This is not totally hopeless, but it would be good
to at least get the libraries working (glib, gvfs, etc.)

> But personally I don't run jhbuild past gtk+ much myself anymore because
> I use gnome-ostree for hacking on GNOME.

Your http://ostree.gnome.org builds indeed look very stable, mostly
because they aren't runningi checks. Do you eventually plan on doing
this, or is OSTree not the right place for this?

Our goal is to provide CI with not only build tests, but also runtime
tests, so that we can immediately see if e. g. a glib commit breaks
something in settings-daemon or pygobject. Do you think it makes sense
to do that in ostree.g.o, or should we have separate
"functionality/reverse dependency test" builds for those?

Thanks,

Martin

-- 
Martin Pitt                        | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)  | Debian Developer  (www.debian.org)