[PATCH libdrm] add gitlab-ci builds of libdrm

[Daniel Vetter]

On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 09:07:10AM +0100, Eric Engestrom wrote:
> On Monday, 2018-09-03 09:50:06 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 05:13:25PM +0100, Eric Engestrom wrote:
> > > On Friday, 2018-08-31 16:03:44 +0100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > > Hi Eric,
> > > > 
> > > > On Fri, 31 Aug 2018 at 15:22, Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom at intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > +    - LIBPCIACCESS_VERSION=libpciaccess-0.10 &&
> > > > > +      wget --no-check-certificate https://xorg.freedesktop.org/releases/individual/lib/$LIBPCIACCESS_VERSION.tar.bz2 &&
> > > > 
> > > > Why are you using --no-check-certificate?!
> > > 
> > > Right, forgot to add a comment for this, sorry.
> > > 
> > > fd.o uses LetsEncrypt, which is not present in the ca-certificate on
> > > debian:stable. I had to choose between ignoring the certificate error or
> > > use a custom CA, which just didn't seem worth it.
> > 
> > Slightly more modern distro then? On the kernel side we're going with
> > fedora:latest, that also tends to have all the latest bells&whistles we
> > need for compiling some of our things.
> 
> I have two distros in this pipeline: arch to test the up-to-date stuff
> and debian to test the ancient stuff.
> Should I drop debian and just keep arch to only have the up-to-date test?
 
Ah, I missed that. Makes sense (if you add a comment to explain this).

> FYI, I'm planning on adding freebsd too (later this week hopefully).

I think cross-compiling to arm/arm64, and making sure x86 (the 32bit
stuff) keeps working would be great too. If you go to the trouble of
testing all these things :-)
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch