From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 995C6C433DB for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 17:21:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45F5864E00 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 17:21:43 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 45F5864E00 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=xenproject.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Received: from list by lists.xenproject.org with outflank-mailman.88290.165893 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lEEtq-0004yH-MS; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 17:21:34 +0000 X-Outflank-Mailman: Message body and most headers restored to incoming version Received: by outflank-mailman (output) from mailman id 88290.165893; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 17:21:34 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lEEtq-0004yA-J5; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 17:21:34 +0000 Received: by outflank-mailman (input) for mailman id 88290; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 17:21:32 +0000 Received: from all-amaz-eas1.inumbo.com ([34.197.232.57] helo=us1-amaz-eas2.inumbo.com) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lEEto-0004y5-Lq for xen-devel@lists.xen.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 17:21:32 +0000 Received: from mail.xenproject.org (unknown [104.130.215.37]) by us1-amaz-eas2.inumbo.com (Halon) with ESMTPS id 1a67abc4-6e7d-4ed6-86a9-2d24e4fd4e74; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 17:21:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from xenbits.xenproject.org ([104.239.192.120]) by mail.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lEEtm-00053X-UK for xen-devel@lists.xen.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 17:21:30 +0000 Received: from iwj (helo=mariner.uk.xensource.com) by xenbits.xenproject.org with local-bsmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lEEtm-0006zj-TX for xen-devel@lists.xen.org; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 17:21:30 +0000 Received: from iwj by mariner.uk.xensource.com with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1lEEtZ-0001Zq-Bp; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 17:21:17 +0000 X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Precedence: list Sender: "Xen-devel" X-Inumbo-ID: 1a67abc4-6e7d-4ed6-86a9-2d24e4fd4e74 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xenproject.org; s=20200302mail; h=References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:Date :Message-ID:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:From; bh=a/9qX5moC3Rq8S3aUWOAoq37RgEc4xE6+ZRw7DRDZlQ=; b=6th44pN9krjVTBoZSv0zruvT1T wiu9rDTZKD4cNrY/XZTQTvSWP5vLB4lVM+UJ7w0MyrAz8KKuEVhdoYMs/2X05KMmkoKZkNHYbODwT XL/Qud00erH3YqsN/mtf1iZVBSLIKqbBL+4Kp59XADMDBAnAVypRQywAFYuzI3knTDx4=; From: Ian Jackson MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <24627.59405.114762.685265@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 17:21:17 +0000 To: Andrew Cooper Cc: Jan Beulich , Ian Jackson , George Dunlap , Julien Grall , Stefano Stabellini , Wei Liu , Juergen Gross , Xen-devel Subject: Re: Stable ABI checking (take 2) In-Reply-To: References: <68c93553-7db5-f43b-b3cd-b9112a8a57dc@citrix.com> <78eec55c-ac2c-467e-0a2c-9acb44eba850@suse.com> X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 24.5.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) Jan Beulich writes ("Re: Stable ABI checking (take 2)"): > On 22.02.2021 15:03, Andrew Cooper wrote: > +1 for option 2, fwiw. I'm in favour of option 2. Andrew Cooper writes ("Re: Stable ABI checking (take 2)"): > As far as RPM is concerned, splitting the two is important, as %build > and %check are explicitly separate steps.  I have no idea what the deb > policy/organisation is here. The reason why distro build systems like to distinguish "build" from "check" (run tests) is that often the tests are time-consuming (or have intrusive dependencies or other practical problems). IMO if the ABI check is very fast there is no reason not to run it by default. (We have configure to deal with the dependency issue.) Ian.