W dniu 25.07.2012 06:41, Georgy Redkozubov pisze:

Hi Zygmunt,

On 07/25/2012 02:26 AM, Zygmunt Krynicki wrote:

...

Hi everyone.

I've setup a set of builds to examine how my BUILD-INFO.txt overlays are interpreted by the build system.

Sadly the tests seem to indicate that the system does not work. There are two tests to show this:

Build: https://android-build.linaro.org/builds/~zkrynicki/origen-ics-gcc47-samsungl...

This build uses:

1. Samsung 'name' of the build
2. Panda source code
3. Fake overlay with snowball license

The result is: samsung license presented.

Build: https://android-build.linaro.org/builds/~zkrynicki/origen-ics-gcc47-samsungl...

Points 1-3 as before, the only difference is some switch in jenkins (that I cannot see as I don't have access to jenkins) that instructs it to pull BUILD-INFO.txt from the build tree.

The result is: no license is presented, any file can be downloaded at will

Both builds are correct in the term that BUILD-INFO.txt is copied to the output directory, alongside system.tar.bz2 This can be easily confirmed by grepping for BUILD-INFO.txt in the full build logs

My suggestion for tomorrow:

1. I'd like to work with Gesha who implemented the php based system to

debug why build #6 failed to work.

Build #6 didn't fail. It works as expected. BUILD-INFO.txt points to an 'open' build, so no license acceptance is asked. Build #5 doesn't have BUILD-INFO.txt, so old EULA style (path-based) is used to determine what license to show, in our case it is Samsung.

Which is wrong as both builds copied snowball BUILD-INFO.txt

...

Gesha: would you have some time to work on this (in sync) tomorrow?

Sure, please ping me.

Great! See you after breakfast.

...

2. I'd like to get it to work as intended. Getting access to jenkins

would make this part much much easier (I suspect that requires danilos/asac to ack).

3. I'd like to ACK the plan on how to switch production builds to this

with all the stakeholders (asac, pfefferz, gesha).

Do you have a plan? :) We are waiting for RTs #518 and #504 being resolved and then we can switch to the new license protection.

I was hoping we don't need to wait for those tickets but if there is no other way then we can just propose that as a plan.

...

Currently we are in position to switch everything bug samsung/origen builds (still waiting for a response from anyone on the samsung team, will reiterate/escalate to get response and move the topic). The only things that are preventing us from doing this is the actual build/download system integration.

Thanks everyone. ZK

W dniu 25.07.2012 11:28, Georgy Redkozubov pisze:

...

...

Which is wrong as both builds copied snowball BUILD-INFO.txt

I don't see BUILD-INFO.txt for #5 on snapshots.l.o

That is correct, build 5 was made before pfalcon migrated the configuration template for all builds (whatever that is) to copy build info.

gesha@mombin:~$ ls /srv/snapshots.linaro.org/www/android/~zkrynicki/origen-ics-gcc47-samsunglt-stable-fakeblob-build-info/5/target/product/pandaboard/ boot.tar.bz2 EULA.txt MD5SUMS system.tar.bz2 u-boot.img userdata.tar.bz2 gesha@mombin:~$ ls /srv/snapshots.linaro.org/www/android/~zkrynicki/origen-ics-gcc47-samsunglt-stable-fakeblob-build-info/6/target/product/pandaboard/ boot.tar.bz2 BUILD-INFO.txt EULA.txt MD5SUMS system.tar.bz2 u-boot.img userdata.tar.bz2

Build 6 was also correct as I've explained on IRC:

<zyga> gesha, so I've send an email yesterday gesha, but it's no longer accurate, I've made a mistake in my tests gesha, it seems everything _is_ fine gesha, current build should confirm that gesha, I've specified the overlay twice gesha, with the second overlay being what we actually saw

Thanks ZK

W dniu 25.07.2012 14:39, Alexander Sack pisze:

so, did we manage to successfully validate that it works? I only saw that build #5 didn't work because there was no BUILD-INFO.txt and build #6 shipped an open license.

Partially, we found two bugs that had to be fixed to continue testing:

1) The configuration on android-build.linaro.org listed the overlay twice. The second entry was 'open' and kept overriding the one we wanted to test.

2) The test/mock overlays for snowball and origen used incorrect file pattern that didn't match the generated tarballs. This is now fixed and pending upload to snapshot server to resume testing.

We did confirm that open works properly, we are in progress of testing restricted.

Can we get builds with and without the old build name scheme kicked off and validated with open and eula build-info style?

I'm doing that right now. I'll have the full range of tests ({named,nameless}x{open,restricted,snowball,origen}.

I'm currently building restricted nameless in https://android-build.linaro.org/builds/~zkrynicki/bummer-no-license-to-gues... ), it should prove the most valuable test so far.

I've also synced with gesha and it seems that other RT tickets for deployment of new servers and django should no longer block us.