Burt, > Jon's assessment is more accurate than what I wrote previously. That's > because I was mashing together two issues that really are separate, but are > closely related. In my case, I know I was trying to play a game of using > minimal disk space, and I played a game at the start where I determined > dependencies manually (as I believe install-dep brings in more than a minimal > set.) I must have forgotten which copy I had played this game, and then I > complained that install-dep is missing things. And when I realized my error, > I felt embarrassed for delivering misinformation. I went overboard in > attempting to apologize for my error. But the other issue that Jon, you > correctly point out, is that Ole neglected to give any heads up that his > change requires re-running make install-dep. So maybe someone who is 120% > perfect, after seeing that Ole's change does not "just work" would then read > the change, and say, "OH, I need to rerun make install-dep." > > I think the imperfect solution is that next time, the Heads up should appear, > at least on this list. Exactly the way Jon suggests.
You are right, I should absolutely have given a heads up. Sorry about that. Best regards, Ole > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Jon Loeliger <j...@netgate.com> wrote: > Burt and Ole, > > On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 7:26 AM, <otr...@employees.org> wrote: > > Hmm, so https://gerrit.fd.io/r/#/c/5781/ > isn't sufficient? > > Necessary, yes. Sufficient? No. > > On the other hand... > > On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Burt Silverman <bur...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ugh, I made a terrible bone head mistake... Possibly I never ran make > install-dep. Even if I had, I was unaware that it is a good idea to run it > again, just to be sure, in a case like this. I probably thought it was like > make bootstrap, where running a 2nd time doesn't help. Apologies to Ed and > Ole for misinformation. So, Jon, were you in the same boat with me -- didn't > do a double check of make install-dep? I guess so, because you still had the > problem after Ole's fix. > > Burt > > This was precisely the problem here. I'll try to say this as > politely as I can... Wow. That's some blind-siding sh*t. > > So, let's talk about that a bit. > > First, thank you for identifying the issue! This does indeed > fix the build locally, and bring us back to online par. Thank you! > > Second, the notion of requiring repeated running of the make > install-dep target as part of our daily build process from our > CI engine is just not going to happen. NFW. We're not running > anything has root like that. It's a bad idea for many reasons. > > On the flip side, I can make a job that "notices" a change in the > installed packaged requirement and run that as, say, a daily job > and incidentally notice that updates are needed. Sure, polling > like that sucks; an interrupt here with a simple "Heads up! The > install-deps have changed" would have been awesome! > > Thanks, > jdl > >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ vpp-dev mailing list vpp-dev@lists.fd.io https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
