On 10/10/25 1:51 PM, Eelco Chaudron wrote: > > > On 9 Oct 2025, at 11:21, Ilya Maximets wrote: > >> While adding new code we frequently miss that certain compiler features >> may be relatively new, or more often that some system headers are not >> available or do not have certain definitions in them. This results in >> builds failing on older systems. >> >> Adding a new CI job that runs inside Ubuntu 14.04 container, which is >> the oldest Ubuntu that is in the "legacy support" mode: >> https://ubuntu.com/about/release-cycle >> >> This image has GCC 4.8 that is missing a lot of modern features and >> it's based on Linux v3.13 kernel that also has a lot of definitions >> missing in uAPI headers, compared to modern ones. This makes this >> image a good candidate for a baseline "old distribution" testing. >> >> This job can't cover everything and there will be different >> configurations and distributions that may still fail, especially if >> they have custom backports or some packages much newer than others. >> But it should cover the vast majority of potential issues. >> >> Since we're running inside a very old container, we can't use any of >> the pre-defined GitHub workflows like 'checkout' or 'cache', as they >> are based on Node.js that is built for much newer version of Ubuntu >> and so requires much newer glibc to run. Hence doing everything >> manually. >> >> Need to disable SSL, as we require OpenSSL 1.1.1+, which can probably >> be built, but it seems like a bit of a waste of time to re-build so >> many large things from sources. Need to build a newer python though, >> as python >= 3.7 is required in order to build OVS. >> >> Building python 3.12 because it's the same as in other tests. We could >> also find and choose the latest 3.12.z release automatically, but it's >> much less code to just manually stick to the current latest 3.12.11. >> There should be no reason to update it frequently. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ilya Maximets <[email protected]> > > Thanks for adding this, Ilya! At first, I was drawn to the fact that all > but the `name:`, `runs-on`, etc., were not aligned like the rest, but it > looks like the whole file is like this :(
Making yaml look nice is an exercise in futility... :) > > So the changes look good to me! > > Acked-by: Eelco Chaudron <[email protected]> > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
