[OE-core] [PATCH RFC CFH][sumo 00/47] CVE check backport

[Richard Purdie]

On Thu, 2019-11-07 at 07:55 -0800, akuster808 wrote:
> 
> On 11/7/19 7:03 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > On Wed, 2019-11-06 at 13:46 -0800, akuster808 wrote:
> > > On 11/6/19 7:37 AM, Mikko Rapeli wrote:
> > > QA resources have been a donation from Intel and Windriver above
> > > their membership fees.  I don't fee right asking them to run QA.
> > > > patches aiming at yocto 2.5 sumo. If not, would be really nice
> > > > if
> > > > someone could collect patches into sumo-next or sumo-contrib
> > > > branch
> > > > where us
> > > > users could be in charge of all Quality Assurance.
> > > I have collected other patches for sumo and built them locally
> > > but I
> > > have no way to inform Richard they pass an AB  builds or
> > > automated
> > > testing for them to get  into mainline sumo.
> > Given the discussions around LTS and the fact we'd need to do
> > *something* with the autobuilder to help support it, I've been
> > experimenting.
> > 
> > I created a sumo-next branch with a uninative update and Mikko's
> > patches and then managed to get it to build (and pass) on the
> > autobuilder.
> > 
> > I did directly merge a bitbake fix to the 1.38 branch to avoid test
> > failures too.
> > 
> > The autobuilder successfully builds a-full for sumo-next. Compared
> > to a
> > normal build the differences are:
> > 
> > * unsupported workers are removed from the pool for sumo so it
> > only 
> >   builds on a subset of the infrastructure
> > * no buildperf tests
> > * there are no supported fedora workers left so no oe-selftest-
> > fedora
> > * no ptest image execution (we never did this with sumo)
> > * no test result output (wasn't present in sumo and never
> > backported)
> > 
> > I'm prepared to merge sumo-next on the basis of these results and
> > use
> > it as a model for how we could continue to get critical patches
> > into
> > older releases. 
> Are you taking the other patches also submitted for sumo ?

I am worried about what the bigger picture for this looks like but we
could try testing them. I think the TSC needs to discuss this.

Cheers,

Richard