[LTP] [PATCH] ci: add centos stream support

[Li Wang]

Hi Petr,

On Fri, Nov 3, 2023 at 5:14 PM Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> wrote:

> > Hi Petr,
>
> > On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 5:21 PM Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> > > Hi Li,
>
> > > > This is base on Peter's patch:
> > > >   CI: ReAplace CentOS 7 with openSUSE Leap 42.2, Ubuntu xenial
>
> > > > Ci: https://github.com/wangli5665/ltp/actions/runs/6729379565
>
> > > Reviewed-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
>
>
> > Thanks!
>
>
> > > ATM we have 18 jobs, IMHO we should not add more without removing
> others
> > > just to
> > > have reasonable CI runtime.
>
>
> > Your concern makes sense, but I have no idea which one could be removed.
>
> I wonder if just adding CentOS 9 would be enough. Because in CI we test
> just
> compilation. The point of the public CI is to test the oldest distros,
> newest
> distros and something in between, that should cover the most of compilation
> problems (no need to test *all* used distros to be safe).
> But sure, both can stay if you want. The runtime is still reasonable.
> NOTE: I did not care much in case of iputils, which have much faster build
> than
> LTP.
>
> If we want to add both CentOS 8 and 9, we could remove some of
> debian:oldstable (bullseye)
> (similar kernel).
>
> And, we could add just openSUSE Leap 42.2, which has older glibc and gcc
> than
> Ubuntu 16.04 LTS xenial. For sure there are more people which use xenial
> than
> old Leap 42.2, but as I said, the goal is to test the oldest distro we
> maintainers really care about (and do not have extra work for nothing,
> which is
> IMHO keeping CentOS 7 compilable).
>
> WDYT?
>

Your explanation is quite useful, thanks!

I'm fine to remove the CentOS8 build in this patch,
should I resent the new patch or push it directly?


-- 
Regards,
Li Wang