Hello,
On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:44:56 +0300 Paul Sokolovsky Paul.Sokolovsky@linaro.org wrote:
[]
But the problem we have is not that we can't get reliable *builds* in LAVA - it's that the *complete* CBuild picture doesn't work in LAVA. Benchmarks is a culprit specifically. If you want reliable builds, just use "lava-panda-usbdrive" queue - that will use those 15 standard Panda boards mentioned by Renato, with known good rootfs/kernel. The problem, gcc, etc. binaries produced by those builds won't run on benchmarking image, because OS versions of "known good Panda rootfs" and "validated CBuild PandaES rootfs" are different.
Ok, this discussed appear to get backlogged in release rush, and may be forgotten for some time after it, so I'm proceeding with this proposed intermediate solution - switch daily gcc builds to "lava-panda-usbdrive" queue. That can't do much hard, as lava-pandaes-usbdrive results are not usable at all.
I also see that gcc-4.9 builds take even longer time, so increased LAVA timeout for them.
[]