More over : https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1239082 ; Aren't we disabling all Buildbot Based b2g desktop "hazard" builds on all trees ?
On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 12:26:58 PM UTC-8, nhi...@mozilla.com wrote: > I think the QC gonk layer had required 4.7 to lunch. > > As far as I know you would have had to use the emulator from the get go if > you wanted to test the ril? The ril is in the Gonk layer as far as I know > still and the Gonk layer isn't in the mulet nor desktop builds... > > On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 10:36:35 AM UTC-8, Steve Fink wrote: > > On 01/25/2016 09:40 AM, Fabrice Desré wrote: > > > On 01/25/2016 09:30 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > > > > > >> For example, for a long time b2g partners held back our minimum > > >> supported gcc. Now that there are no such partner requirements, perhaps > > >> we can consider bumping up the minimum to gcc 4.8? (bug 1175546) > > > We moved to 4.8 on b2g a year ago: see > > > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1056337 > > > Who's behind? :P > > > > I am. > > > > The b2g rooting hazard analysis build is still using gcc 4.7. I spent a > > bunch of effort trying to upgrade it to gcc 4.9, but ran into a variety > > of issues I didn't understand related to the b2g build system (both on > > my local laptop and on a build slave), and finally gave up in despair. > > But the b2g hazard build is also a mozharness tangle of mixins and weird > > inheritance structure (as is the older b2g emulator build), and those > > are being replaced with taskcluster-based builds. > > > > In the last 2 weeks, I've been working on redoing the b2g hazard build > > on top of taskcluster and mulet. Partly because it's mulet, and partly > > because it uses Docker and simple shell scripts, it has been *way* way > > way way way *way* easier and more pleasant to deal with. I have it > > working locally, so I hope to have the b2g hazard builds upgraded to gcc > > 4.9 soonish. > > > > But that's on top of mulet, which means it isn't compiling any of the > > MOZ_B2G_RIL code, which means it has lost some coverage over the > > original build. If I understand correctly, the "right" thing to do would > > be to use an emulator build instead, but that means that the b2g build > > system gets involved again, which is complex and slings around a lot > > more data, so everything is far slower to work on. > > > > With FxOS becoming tier 3, I am disinclined to even attempt the emulator > > version. In theory, it would be a straightforward adaptation of the > > mulet hazard build script. In practice, it would take a while to even > > test out that theory. _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
