On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 4:40 AM, Jan Kundrát <j...@kde.org> wrote: > On středa 11. ledna 2017 6:57:50 CET, Martin Gräßlin wrote: > >> That doesn't work. Such inflexibility take away the advantage of having a >> CI. >> > > What base system(s) do you prefer to target as a developer, Martin? > > A CI system can have different sets of base images for different projects > (and different branches, etc). Something along these lines: > > - KF5 might care a bit about slow-moving distributions such as RHEL7 > (well, except for a requirement on Qt 5.6) > > - Plasma LTS might want to target versions of faster-moving distros which > were around at a time of their release. Say, Fedora 24? Ubuntu 16.04 LTS? > > - The master branches of Plasma might want to get rid of the legacy > workarounds. Can we use the latest Fedora with aggressive backports of > rawhide packages upon request for this? > > - Various applications within KDE might have completely different > requiremens. Some "leaf" applications might want to target slow-moving > distributions with their ancient Qt. > > So this incomplete set of requirements probably translates to four base > images. I'm using a RPM-centric terminology and picking these distros > because of my professional background with these systems: > > 1) CentOS 7 with Qt 5.6 from EPEL and installed devtoolset > 2) Ubuntu 16.04 LTS with a distro Qt (that is 5.5) > 3) latest Fedora with Qt from git and an unspecified number of packages > from rawhide > 4) Debian Jessie with a system Qt 5.3 > > Each project in KDE can then choose whether they care about these > individual base images (subject to the availability of dependencies, of > course -- if KF5 don't care about Jessie and Qt 5.3, no project which uses > any KF5 can possibly opt in to support that configuration for obvious > reasons). By default, all projects get just 3) for the "latest and > greatest" and for minimal wasted manpower. > > With my (non-KDE) sysadmin hat on, I believe that the infrastructure > should be provided as a service offering for developers. It is the > developer's job to produce working code which is packageable. I don't think > it's a developer's job to make a CI's sysadmin life uneventful, though. > Perhaps the architecture outlined above can help achieve these goals with > minimal manpower? >
This seems like a good idea to me. I have always thought we should have more than one distro image. I will even take the responsibility of maintaining them. Scarlett > > Cheers, > Jan > > -- > Trojitá, a fast Qt IMAP e-mail client -- http://trojita.flaska.net/ >
