Well, what about using check_patch.sh on all platforms unless there is
a more specific file? That is future proof unless a bigger
incompatibility appears.
The same goes for package files with one possible extension. Allow
includes of other files.
Martin
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Barak Korren <bkorren(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 10 January 2017 at 14:33, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden
<ewoud+ovirt(a)kohlvanwijngaarden.nl> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:31:50AM +0200, Barak Korren wrote:
>> I suggest we make the platform suffix explicitly required (with a
>> compatibility fall-back, see below), so that to have 'check_patch' run
>> on Fedora 25 for x86_64, one will have to have a
>> 'check_patch.sh.fc25.x86_64' script (or symlink) in the automation
>> directory.
>
> I'd suggest a directory per platform. That way you can simply symlink
> f25 to f24 and copy all the checks.
I'm guessing this suggestion is in order to avoid having too many
symlinks. It seems to me this may not be needed if we keep the
existing logic for finding *.packages and *.repos files. Consider the
following automation dir content:
check_patch.sh
check_patch.packages
check_patch.sh.fc24 -> check_patch.sh
check_patch.sh.fc25 -> check_patch.sh
So same checks running on el7, fc25, fc25, with the same packages and
with no much duplication and not too many symlinks. Am I missing
something?
--
Barak Korren
bkorren(a)redhat.com
RHCE, RHCi, RHV-DevOps Team
https://ifireball.wordpress.com/
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel