Hello, On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:44:56 +0300 Paul Sokolovsky <paul.sokolov...@linaro.org> wrote:
[] > But the problem we have is not that we can't get reliable *builds* in > LAVA - it's that the *complete* CBuild picture doesn't work in LAVA. > Benchmarks is a culprit specifically. If you want reliable builds, > just use "lava-panda-usbdrive" queue - that will use those 15 > standard Panda boards mentioned by Renato, with known good > rootfs/kernel. The problem, gcc, etc. binaries produced by those > builds won't run on benchmarking image, because OS versions of "known > good Panda rootfs" and "validated CBuild PandaES rootfs" are > different. Ok, this discussed appear to get backlogged in release rush, and may be forgotten for some time after it, so I'm proceeding with this proposed intermediate solution - switch daily gcc builds to "lava-panda-usbdrive" queue. That can't do much hard, as lava-pandaes-usbdrive results are not usable at all. I also see that gcc-4.9 builds take even longer time, so increased LAVA timeout for them. [] -- Best Regards, Paul Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog _______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
