Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

build-uefi-sb workflow #231

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 11, 2025
Merged

build-uefi-sb workflow #231

merged 2 commits into from
Feb 11, 2025

Conversation

PLangowski
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

@PLangowski PLangowski marked this pull request as draft January 30, 2025 08:18
@PLangowski PLangowski marked this pull request as ready for review February 5, 2025 11:33
@PLangowski PLangowski force-pushed the uefi-sb-ci branch 2 times, most recently from 2ab6b0c to 289298c Compare February 5, 2025 13:32
m-iwanicki
m-iwanicki requested changes Feb 5, 2025
View reviewed changes
.github/workflows/build.yml Show resolved Hide resolved
.github/workflows/ci.yml Show resolved Hide resolved
.github/workflows/ci.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
m-iwanicki
m-iwanicki approved these changes Feb 5, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@m-iwanicki m-iwanicki left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM.

@PLangowski PLangowski changed the title wip: build-uefi-sb workflow build-uefi-sb workflow Feb 5, 2025
@PLangowski PLangowski marked this pull request as draft February 5, 2025 14:58
@m-iwanicki
Copy link
Contributor

The build goes for longer than I thought it would. Maybe we should add uefi-sb build to weekly CI run and push to cache.
We should probably create separate dts-sb (https://cache.dasharo.com/yocto/) folder as it might have negative impact on current dts cache (and as it is there is only about 9% that can be used for uefi build)

@PLangowski PLangowski force-pushed the uefi-sb-ci branch 2 times, most recently from 005f95f to 674aa80 Compare February 6, 2025 09:56
@PLangowski PLangowski marked this pull request as ready for review February 6, 2025 09:56
@PLangowski
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@m-iwanicki

Maybe we should add uefi-sb build to weekly CI run

Do you think we should do it here or in another PR?

@m-iwanicki
Copy link
Contributor

In this PR or another PR targeting this one (so you can use build.yml changes).
You could then test here again if cache is used.
If you are going to use cache in another folder then I think it's enough to override PROJECT_NAME (used in cache.yml) in kas-uefi-sb.yml with custom path.
And you can easily test weekly.yml as it can be run manually

m-iwanicki
m-iwanicki requested changes Feb 7, 2025
View reviewed changes
kas/cache-uefi-sb.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
.github/workflows/weekly.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
.github/workflows/weekly.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@PLangowski PLangowski force-pushed the uefi-sb-ci branch 2 times, most recently from 73551b8 to 7d80f73 Compare February 10, 2025 09:40
m-iwanicki
m-iwanicki requested changes Feb 10, 2025
View reviewed changes
.github/workflows/build.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
.github/workflows/weekly.yml Show resolved Hide resolved
.github/workflows/weekly.yml Show resolved Hide resolved
@PLangowski PLangowski force-pushed the uefi-sb-ci branch 3 times, most recently from fead1e9 to 3d327fd Compare February 11, 2025 08:21
@PLangowski PLangowski merged commit ebc2c42 into develop Feb 11, 2025
1 check passed
@PLangowski PLangowski deleted the uefi-sb-ci branch February 11, 2025 09:26
@PLangowski PLangowski mentioned this pull request Feb 11, 2025
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@m-iwanicki m-iwanicki m-iwanicki approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@PLangowski @m-iwanicki