[M3devel] OpenCSW build farm access

[Jay K]

Just to clarify: "leave the stuff on my machine for now" is more like
"I'm not pulling the plug, take your time with Dago"
and less like "give up on Dago".

I think the Hudson init script written in Groovy be the place
to fix $PATH, to find cvs.
Give me a bit..

 > another source for Solaris cycles

Like, someone who
 - has an easier network topology
 - no Solaris 2.9 desire/agenda, who we therefore won't disappoint
    if we don't get 2.9 working

so we don't "steal" from Dago.
(Yes, I realize I'm being wishy-washy here..)

I agree though if you already have people using Hudson...

Give me a bit on the path/cvs thing.

And I have multiple options for x86 2.9 OpenGL.

 - Jay

----------------------------------------
> CC: wagner at elegosoft.com; m3devel at elegosoft.com; trygvis at opencsw.org
> From: dam at baltic-online.de
> To: jay.krell at cornell.edu
> Subject: Re: [M3devel] OpenCSW build farm access
> Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 11:05:37 +0200
>
> Hi,
>
> Am 12.05.2010 um 09:43 schrieb Jay K:
>> Well.. for now let's just leave Hudson on my machine asis.
>> Maybe Tony can provide a machine?
>
> I'm pretty sure we can work this out. Other projects are using
> the farm also with Hudson, so it should be quite possible in the
> current configuration.
>
>> So..a general dilemna is how to give Dago something for him giving
>> us something.
>> And how much is enough on either side?
>> Don't want to take and not give back, or whatnot.
>
> Just provide cvsup for Solaris 9 sparc/x86 and I am happy :-)
> Additionally,
> a goal of providing the buildfarm is to aid upstream projects in
> ensuring
> Solaris compatibility. As you obviously do that it is perfectly ok.
>
>> I386_SOLARIS, AMD64_SOLARIS are now in good shape.
>> See http://www.modula3.com/cm3/uploaded-archives/index.html.
>
> Cool.
>
>> System builds itself.
>> The whole thing on x86/2.10. Up to opengl on x86/2.9.
>> I think I'll just do an existance check on 2.9 and stuff built
>> there will just omit it.
>>
>> I haven't tested the X apps yet.
>>
>> I haven't tried Sparc32/64 yet on 2.8/2.9, but they could very well
>> work ok.
>> 2.8 would have a problem with user threads, but I know how to
>> fix it.
>> (Dago is ok dropping 2.8 anyway, and user threads also don't
>> really matter).
>
> Yes.
>
>> How much value is there to an occasional manual build, vs. better
>> automation?
>> With or without running the tests?
>> Like, not hudson?
>>
>> At some point I'll probably setup Solaris/x86.
>> I already have, multiple times, just haven't configured it to my
>> liking and kept it up and running.
>> But I'd like to offload some power/heat/environmental-
>> responsibility maybe.
>> Maybe trade for other OSes. :)
>> Also distribute the responsibility anyway. You don't want it all
>> depending on my network connectivity, even if it was good. :)
>>
>> I may have another option for Solaris. I'll check.
>
> I do feel offended ;-)
>
>> I can think of somewhat rude suggestions, like:
>> Commit access shall be limited unless commiter provides Hudson
>> resources. :)
>> Of any sort or non-zero quantity -- don't make things too hard.
>> Heck -- surely Linux/x86 is among the easiest for anyone to take. :)
>> Then again, I'm not a manager, maybe I shouldn't try to think of
>> ways to motivate people. :)
>>
>> Also maybe login is usable at least for Solaris 2.10 sparc stuff?
>> Or is that an abuse?
>
> It is not abuse, but there is no compiler there.
>
>
> Best regards
>
> -- Dago
>