On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:21:31AM -0500, Justin Forbes wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:13 AM Prarit Bhargava <prarit@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 5/13/20 10:31 AM, Don Zickus wrote: > > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 07:22:45AM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > > >> On 5/13/20 3:50 AM, Jiri Benc wrote: > > >>> On Tue, 12 May 2020 20:19:09 -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > > >>>> My patch in merge request 354 changes the names of makefile targets from rh-* to > > >>>> dist-* > > >>> > > >>> I haven't seen that patch on kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. What's > > >>> going on? > > > > > > The piece of the puzzle you are probably missing is: > > > https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark-ci > > > > > > > Thanks. That's what I was looking for. > > > > > which holds the CI scripts. It is in a separate repo for security reasons > > > (don't want a kernel change to include modifying the CI scripts to falsely > > > pass something malicious). > > > > > > However, that split leads to the scenario you are in, how to update both at > > > the same time, which we were trying to avoid again for security reasons > > > (always want to use either a tag or head of master, not a custom branch for > > > the CI scripts). > > > > > > We may have to create a transition patch to handle this. Unfortunately you > > > hit this scenario sooner than we were expecting to deal with it. :-( > > > > Heh :) Of course it's my fault :) :) > > > > How about these steps? > > > > 1) I patch to add the dist-* targets and keep the old rh-* targets temporarily. > > This patch will be messy unless someone has some Makefile-fu. > > 2) I modify the kernel-ark-ci scripts to use the dist-* targets. > > 3) I patch to remove the old rh-* targets which will result in an overall clean > > patch. That was the approach I was thinking of too. > > > > Would that work for everyone? > > > This seems unnecessarily messy. Why not modify the CI scripts to check > both and as long as at least one of them passes, CI passes? That is another way. But is there any value to leaving the rh- stuff in the scripts? Unless we want to preserve legacy like rhel-7/8. I don't mind either way. I would like to preserve the idea that for security reasons the code and the ci rules are split and updated asynchronously. I think both approaches respect that idea. Now ARK/Fedora CI scripts don't really necessitate a split other than the branching scheme we use. But when CentOS-stream ramps up later this year, more rules and resources get involved and the security from the separation becomes stronger. So practicing now helps test out a solution. Hopefully that makes sense! Cheers, Don _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list -- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
