On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 09:31:30AM +0100, Peter Krempa via Devel wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 09:21:18 +0100, Jiri Denemark wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 11:14:00 +0100, Peter Krempa wrote: > > > From: Peter Krempa <[email protected]> > > > > > > Add the test data based on 'v10.2.0-rc1-11-g5a5b06d2f6'. > > > > > > Note that the data was collected on a Raspberry Pi 5, thus the CPU has > > > changed to what we had collected before. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Krempa <[email protected]> > > > > Is this marked as RFC because you generated it on a different host? > > It's a combination of factors ... > > > I don't think the CPU itself should be a problem, we're changing that for > > other archs as well since you don't want to keep an ancient machine > > prepared somewhere just to keep using the same CPU for regenerating > > capabilities data. > > ... I'm willing to commit and maintain the aarch64 caps as well as long > as they are on hardware I have permanent access to. So if we're okay > with rpi5 based capabilities I can do them along with the x86 basd ones.
If using rpi5 means you can do this regularly, that's a good tradeoff. I don't think enterprise class hardware matters for the sake of the unit tests. With 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 :|
