Buildfarm build_test script on an embedded device.

Jeremy Allison jra at
Wed Oct 5 11:06:34 MDT 2011

On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 10:47:48AM -0500, Christopher R. Hertel wrote:
> Some notes, as we consider how we will move forward with Embedded Samba.
> Matthieu's changes to the build_test script reduced the run time by only two
> hours.  That, again, emphasizes the point that it's likely the code build
> itself that is taking too long.
> That said, I am, at this point, only using the build_test script to help get
> a sense of the problems we face working in this environment.  I believe that
> Kai is right that we need to figure out how to improve all aspects of our
> performance in the embedded space--I don't want to give this up.  Andrew is
> also correct that the build farm, as it is currently designed and working,
> is not suited to including these kinds of devices.  I also understand that
> changing the workings of the build farm to accommodate embedded platforms is
> not currently a reasonable suggestion.
> The solution may be to set up a separate pool of embedded devices.  I'm not
> sure yet.  I still have a lot to learn about the workings of the build farm.
> Kai:  What do you think about creating a separate Embedded Build Farm
>       environment?  Would that be beneficial?  I will contribute at least
>       the one Dockstar and possibly additional systems (I have a TI device
>       available too, though I have other plans for it).
> ABartlet:  Is this do-able?  What resources would be required?

Not that I can offer any resources :-), but I just want to say
what an *excellent* idea this is.

Having a separate "Embedded Samba" build environment (and/or test
environment) will enable us to work on producing a slimmed down
set of Samba versions that embedded device makers can use for
specific purposes - the single purpose AD-server, the single-purpose
file server etc.

Maybe have a separate waf build target for these specific build
types ?


More information about the samba-technical mailing list