From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D691AA04F3; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 18:34:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 786701DAB2; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 18:34:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6F441DAB1 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 18:34:56 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga008.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.65]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Jan 2020 09:34:55 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,410,1571727600"; d="scan'208";a="216019540" Received: from bricha3-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.221.26]) by orsmga008-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 08 Jan 2020 09:34:54 -0800 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2020 17:34:51 +0000 From: Bruce Richardson To: Aaron Conole Cc: David Marchand , Luca Boccassi , dev , Michael Santana , Thomas Monjalon Message-ID: <20200108173451.GB239@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20200108110251.20916-1-david.marchand@redhat.com> <8a5bc72da0875617a690d6a95d310974413f46da.camel@debian.org> <20200108121011.GA235@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> <20200108155025.GA239@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ci: pin meson to 0.52.0 X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 11:09:59AM -0500, Aaron Conole wrote: > Bruce Richardson writes: > > > On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 10:10:00AM -0500, Aaron Conole wrote: > >> David Marchand writes: > >> > >> > On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 1:10 PM Bruce Richardson > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 12:59:35PM +0100, David Marchand wrote: > >> >> > On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 12:29 PM Luca Boccassi wrote: > >> >> > > > >> >> > > On Wed, 2020-01-08 at 12:02 +0100, David Marchand wrote: > >> >> > > > meson 0.53.0 has a compatibility issue [1] with the python 3.5.2 that > >> >> > > > comes > >> >> > > > in Ubuntu 16.04. > >> >> > > > Let's pin meson to 0.52.0 while the fix is being prepared in meson. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > 1: > >> >> > > > https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/issues/6427 > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand < > >> >> > > > david.marchand@redhat.com > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > --- > >> >> > > > .ci/linux-setup.sh | 2 +- > >> >> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Acked-by: Luca Boccassi > >> >> > > >> >> > There is a 0.52.1 version available, so I suppose we can blacklist > >> >> > meson < 0.53 instead. > >> >> > Thought? > >> >> > > >> >> > If noone objects, I will apply a fix by the end of the day. > >> >> > > >> >> Wondering if there is value in using 0.47.1, the minimum version we > >> >> support, to catch potential issues with someone using features from newer > >> >> versions? I suspect there are more people using the latest releases of > >> >> meson than the baseline supported version? > >> > > >> > Testing with a fixed version seems better in a CI, and since we > >> > announce this minimum version, then yes, it makes sense. > >> > I will post a v2. > >> > >> Why is 0.47.1 still the minimum? Don't we require features that are > >> introduced as of 0.50? > >> > > No, it should still work fine, and a quick sanity check tested with 0.47.1 > > on my system shows no issues, so I think we are good. > > > > There are some warnings printed about future features when you use a later > > version, but in all cases the extra parameters added are just ignored by > > the older versions, so compatiblity is maintained. Adding 0.47.1 to the CI > > will also help avoid any inadvertent new version requirements from sneaking > > in. > > Makes sense to me. Is there a way to make it whitelist the warnings we > know about already? It would be nice to have the CI environment be > warning-free (but I don't object to 0.47.1 being a minimum version or > anything). > I am currently working on reducing the number of meson warnings we have. Patchset I'd hope to get out tomorrow, with meson 0.52 shows only a single warning with doc builds disabled, and 2 with docs enabled. [That's reduced from 5 in both cases as it is now]. I'd hope to get the extra doc build warning removed if I have time in DPDK 20.02, but the final warning is about using meson's built-in warning options rather than our own flags, so I'm not even sure if we want to get rid of it. /Bruce