On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 04:35:32PM +0100, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 15:06 +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
- compiler: gcc dist: precise + # Special scenario to run distcheck, so we don't waste time duplicating + # work in all the other scenarios. Doesn't work on precise due to the + # CVE-2012-3386 flaw being present on that Ubuntu version - compiler: gcc dist: trusty + script: + - make -j3 distcheck
This will override the default script, and make it so the precise/gcc build only runs distcheck rather than the usual all, check, syntax-check. So we need something else.
Yes, that's intentional and not a problem IMHO.
'check' is run as part of 'distcheck' so that's a non-issue.
Running syntax-check in all 5 scenarios isn't buying us anything, as the syntax-check rules don't depend on what is installed in the host. IOW, running syntax-check in 1 scenario is sufficient to get us the coverage we need.
Okay, fair enough. The change still "obfuscates" the Travis configuration though, because now you can't just look at a single script entry but you have to explode the matrix in your head and convince yourself you're covering all bases, so I'm not too happy with it.
I don't think we've got so many different scenarios here that understanding it is a real problem
Moreover, there was a whole thing about just dropping support for precise (as Canonical already did) and making our lives easier later in the mail, but you snipped it without replying...
Opps, I'm not in favour of dropping precise, because I think it is useful to get coverage on older distros. Travis is what I use for testing complex patch series before submission, so I like it to have a useful mix of vintage OSs, not only the very latest that is largely the same as what I build on locally already. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|