feat: Update of the ci#22
Conversation
| # configuration: default | ||
| # base: "7.0" | ||
| # rtems: "4.10" | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Any opinion on RTEMS is outside my competence. I suggest @mdavidsaver reviews this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@dirk-zimoch This is something I am not sure about because rtems: "4.9" works without problems. It would be good if the author of rtems: "4.10" does the review. I commented it out with a note. This was already not working for a long time regardless of this PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
One idea for handling that is to create a GitHub issue about rtems: "4.10" and merge this PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The current state of the epics-base GHA jobs is that the RTEMS 4.10 build does not run tests. There are also RTEMS 5.1 jobs.
https://github.com/epics-base/epics-base/blob/7.0/.github/workflows/ci-scripts-build.yml#L111-L149
|
❌ Build devlib2 1.0.37 failed (commit dd026d1d5a by @jerzyjamroz) |
|
Still the AppVeyor builds fail. But not where it failed before. No idea what the problem is. |
|
@dirk-zimoch , if you don't mind I would merge it, anyway the actual .ci does not work at all. |
| base: "7.0" | ||
|
|
||
| - os: ubuntu-20.04 | ||
| - os: ubuntu-22.04 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe better to switch to ubuntu-latest to avoid some future churn?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For stability, pick a specific version. Perhaps ubuntu-24.04? Then, a few years to revisit the decision.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe better to switch to
ubuntu-latestto avoid some future churn?
Done.
|
❌ Build devlib2 1.0.39 failed (commit 454add61e9 by @jerzyjamroz) |
What's the point of merging as long as the AppVeyor jobs still don't work? |
because Github ci works at least, plus one can do another PR dedicated to AppVeyor. |
If it improved the situation, I approve. But I still rather had a solution that works for all builds. But this is not my repo, so Michael should have the last word. And I have only minor understanding of the whole .ci business, so I can't help fixing it. |
I agree on both points. I think it is reasonable to figure out the GHA RTEMS and Appveyor builds separately. |
|
Ok, so I merge this PR, but one can continue issue #21 as stated above. |
5 participants
No description provided.