On Mon, 2020-08-03 at 15:07 +0200, Petr Vorel wrote: > Hi all, > > > On Fri, 2020-07-31 at 18:32 -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > > - Or even better, Bionic (which is supported by Travis) should have > > > > gost-engine already in the libengine-gost-openssl1.1 package. > > > > In that case `.travis.yml` should have `dist: bionic`. > > > > https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/reference/bionic/ > > > Yes, for the internal git repo I made this change. The internal > > > travis support for bionic is different than the external > > > travis. I'll post what I have as an RFC. > > The internal travis support on ppc defaults to using Bionic, but the > > way of specifying it is different. > > +os: linux-ppc64le > > language: C > > addons: > > apt: > > @Mimi: As I wrote, I'd suggest moving to docker based travis. I can do it once > other issues are addressed, if this setup work for your internal travis support > as well. See examples .travis.yml [1] [2], builds: [3] [4]. > > Advantages are more realistic builds for distro maintainers (different libc and > libraries versions, you can test old and new distro releases, etc), but maybe > that's not what you want/need. > > Disadvantage is that sometimes docker releases have temporary packaging related > issues (first build in [3]; failure in first build [4] is a bug in LTP, corner > case, which would be otherwise undiscovered a long time). Nice! I definitely want to move to a docker based travis. How should we move forward? Should there be a 1.3.1 release now with just the few changes in the next branch and include the existing travis branch with changes to address Vitaly's comments? Mimi > > [1] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/master/.travis.yml > [2] https://github.com/iputils/iputils/blob/master/.travis.yml > [3] https://travis-ci.org/github/iputils/iputils/builds/714445071 > [4] https://travis-ci.org/github/linux-test-project/ltp/builds/714400199
