Re: FOSDEM talk and gnome buildbot deployment

El mié, 28-02-2007 a las 10:10 +0100, Thomas Vander Stichele escribió:
> On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 09:25 +0100, Iago Toral Quiroga wrote:
> > 
> > > AFAIK I need to know two things from you:
> > > - which buildbot client code to check out from where, if you have made
> > > client-side changes
> > 
> > I used the CVS version of buildbot and the SVN version of jhbuild. There
> > is only a very minor cosmetic change to the buildbot code and two
> > patches for jhbuild (we should try to get these merged upstream). 
> Well, if I need patches, I need to know which they are :)

They are in bugzilla, however they are not updated yet. When I setup the
gnome buildbot here I merged those patches with the current trunk and
generated updated versions. I'll first update them in bugzilla and then
I'll point you and Frederic to the URLs.

> > There
> > some other changes, but they are separate files, isolated from the
> > sources of both jhbuild and buildbot, so it is not hard work.
> > 
> > > - the login details to be able to log in to your buildmaster.  
> > 
> > I'll talk to our sysadmin about this, I'd also need the same for these
> > machines.
> I didn't mean actual shell logins.  I meant the user/password for my
> bots.  

Ah, of course, I'll send you this info.

> If you want actual shell logins on the build slaves, I will need
> to do more work to make a DMZ.  FWIW, I don't have shell logins on all
> the slaves for GStreamer, as it's not needed.

It is ok, I guess you can maintain those slaves while we maintain the
master and the slave hosted at Igalia.

> > 
> > > One
> > > machine would be called "bot-actes" and running FC6, the other would be
> > > called "bot-carpa" and running FC rawhide.
> > 
> > would it be possible to change the machine names? I think we should use
> > homogeneous and meaningful names, something like:
> > 
> > (fluendo)
> > (fluendo)
> > (igalia)
> I used to feel the same way, but I stopped doing that.  Typically my
> machines run build slaves for longer than they keep their distro.  Ie, I
> used to call my bot "fc3-whatever", and then a year later I needed to
> upgrade them and change the name and I lost history.
> What do you think ?

You're right. If the master/bots provide meaningful names the actual
underlying machine names are not relevant at all.

> > Also, we need domains for this three machines,... do you know
> > who we should contact in order to do this?
> The sysadmin team - but not sure we need domains, typically no
> one needs to know where they are.  Also, we should accept contributions
> of slaves from wherever, with minimal setup (ie, just "run buildbot code
> and run this command").

Yeah, we do not need them. I just thought it might be interesting, looks
more integrated to me, but we can live without this, it is not
important, and it is true it makes other people contributions a bit

> > I'll write an installation guide for this, it'll make your life easier
> > and it can come in handy in the future too. I'll try to write it during
> > this week so you can start the setup for those machines the next week.
> Like I told dape - I know how to set up buildbot, all I need is "which
> code do you want me to run", "what are the slave details to log in to
> the master".  So as soon as you have the master configured for this
> we're set.

Mmm... I think it is not that easy, actually there are some more things
to do in the slave side to integrate a normal buildbot with our master,
although not too many. I'll send you detailed info.

> If we want more than one person to be able to work on the master, we
> should consider running the master on a gnome server, so all people
> involved can log in there. What do you think ?

Yes, sure. That would make things much easier in that case.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]