On 11/14/22 13:37, Jérémie Tarot wrote:
Could someone explain me how relocating the buildbot on someone's machine can be better for the project than migrating it to GitHub Actions, build farm and package hoster ? Don't get me wrong John and Rod, I very much appreciate your proposal and investment but I believe your time and resources would be better employed. I'm looking at you MesaCT, EtherCAT... From what I've found and understood, it could be enough to upgrade our current ci.yml to use docker containers to build all our packages for the desired architectures and selected distributions/releases, and then use one of the PackageCloud actions available to push artifacts to a specialised host.
The difficulty with building and testing LinuxCNC in docker containers or in off-the-shelf VMs (as in Github Actions) is that our 'RTAI' configuration needs a special kernel, and needs to load and unload kernel modules to run & test LinuxCNC.
(Unlike RTAI, the 'uspace' config *can* be built and tested in docker containers, though we don't currently do that in our Github Actions. The LinuxCNC/mesaflash project builds in docker in Github Actions, and I agree, it's great and super convenient.)
In order to support testing LinuxCNC on RTAI the buildbot uses custom VMs which i created a long time ago and maintain poorly. It all runs on hardware in my house, on my local network, so I am reluctant to open it up to a more collaborative mode of development/maintenance.
-- Sebastian Kuzminsky _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
