chrome pfq builders should use binpkgs for build_packages |
||||||
Issue descriptionfor the purposes of the Chrome PFQ bots (which vet Chrome changes in the current CrOS builds), it should be fine to build the OS side with binpkgs rather than building it all from source all the time i thought we were already doing this, so either i'm mistaken, or a bug has crept in
,
Oct 31
,
Oct 31
athilenius@ ... can you take a look at this as a potential short term fix for the PFQ
,
Oct 31
Ack. Is P3 an accuracy priority though? There is a lot of P1/P2 work backlogged, so P3 is pretty far down the list.
,
Oct 31
Change to P2. PFQ is suffering because of long build times, and I don't see us changing the PFQ process anytime soon, so this would have immediate impact and good to get done soon. if this is overly complex, please schedule sometime this Q for it.
,
Oct 31
i suspect this is "just" a setting in the chromite configs that can be toggled. maybe having the chrome/chromium pfq configs inherit the incremental configs, or another knob to set directly. it's been a while since i've looked through config/chromeos_config.py, but i expect Don should be able to provide a starting point.
,
Nov 8
,
Nov 8
No status change as of right now.
,
Jan 11
This issue has an owner, a component and a priority, but is still listed as untriaged or unconfirmed. By definition, this bug is triaged. Changing status to "assigned". Please reach out to me if you disagree with how I've done this.
,
Jan 17
(5 days ago)
Alec, are you working on this? If not, please find someone else to finish it: this bug has a lot of external visibility. It should be as simple as flipping the configuration for the PFQ's to allow binary packages. |
||||||
►
Sign in to add a comment |
||||||
Comment 1 by tikuta@chromium.org
, Oct 25