<d1b2>
<johnsel> yeah I agree it used to be that way too
<d1b2>
<david.rysk> but that's all related to the whole cmake refactor I've been working on
<d1b2>
<johnsel> I also dont like the use of the github action runner template value for the version
<d1b2>
<david.rysk> which I still need to do testing and add some workarounds for distro bugs
<d1b2>
<johnsel> bvernoux added/modified both at some point
<d1b2>
<johnsel> I'd prefer it to be copy-pasteable
<d1b2>
<johnsel> and be as close to vendor instructions as possible
<d1b2>
<johnsel> which is indeed just sourcing the .sh
<d1b2>
<david.rysk> yup
<d1b2>
<johnsel> and copy the layers I think
<d1b2>
<david.rysk> do you even need to copy the layers if you source the .sh?
<d1b2>
<johnsel> I believe that step is separate
<d1b2>
<johnsel> I would double check
<d1b2>
<johnsel> I think at the end of the install it says copy this and that layers
<d1b2>
<david.rysk> also: what OSes/distros should I be testing my refactor on? I currently have the following: debian oldstable and stable fedora 38, 39, 40 (rawhide) alpine 3.19, arch linux current macOS arm64 macOS x86_64 Windows MINGW64
<d1b2>
<david.rysk> I think that's all
<d1b2>
<johnsel> you could add a version of ubuntu for completion sake
<d1b2>
<david.rysk> I guess. I'm not talking about CI files but just me testing the cmake scripts
<d1b2>
<johnsel> Yes I don't really expect any difference between it and Debian but you never know
<d1b2>
<david.rysk> since I keep running into distro bugs (usually them not including the .cmake files in their packages)
<d1b2>
<david.rysk> Fedora's is fixed in 39, Alpine's isn't so I'll probably have to file it
<d1b2>
<johnsel> centos might make sense to test as well while you're at it since rhel is pretty popular in the eda world
<d1b2>
<david.rysk> I guess but which versions?
<d1b2>
<david.rysk> 7 is really old
<d1b2>
<johnsel> 8 seems fine
<d1b2>
<david.rysk> so then Rocky 8?
<d1b2>
<david.rysk> or CentOS Stream?
<d1b2>
<johnsel> we generally don't support old OS versions anyway
<d1b2>
<david.rysk> I'm not sure what the EDA world's reaction was to that whole mess
<d1b2>
<johnsel> me neither really
<d1b2>
<johnsel> I think either would be better than none
<d1b2>
<david.rysk> I'm just manually spinning up docker containers to test
<d1b2>
<johnsel> alright I've pushed an updated cloud-config template and cycled the vm
<d1b2>
<johnsel> I've also approved you cmake PR for ci
<d1b2>
<david.rysk> fwiw I don't expect that one to ever work on CI, because it depends on changes to the scopehal repo, and may depend on how dependencies are installed
<d1b2>
<johnsel> that's a little confusing to me, your changes will eventually have to run on the CI as well, no?
<d1b2>
<david.rysk> the main problem is that changes to the scopehal CMakeLists.txt, which are in a submodule, are needed
<d1b2>
<david.rysk> and those changes won't be pulled for CI
<d1b2>
<johnsel> yet
<d1b2>
<johnsel> you said not ever
<d1b2>
<johnsel> but alright I understand then
<d1b2>
<david.rysk> I mean the PR won't ever work, once it's merged it should
<d1b2>
<david.rysk> at which point the PR has been closed
<d1b2>
<johnsel> aaahh, right
<d1b2>
<david.rysk> so for the purposes of the PR -- no it won't work
<d1b2>
<johnsel> I see, sure that makes sense
Johnsel has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Johnsel_ has joined #scopehal
Johnsel_ is now known as Johnsel
<d1b2>
<david.rysk> were you able to rerun the CI workflow for the tests PR?
<d1b2>
<azonenberg> @johnsel @david.rysk IMO we should formally define a list of minimum supported OS versions / supported distros
<azonenberg>
also... We're way overdue for another dev meeting since the one in december got canceled when I got sick
<azonenberg>
How's monday the 29th at 10am Pacific sound?
<d1b2>
<david.rysk> Probably OK, I'll check my calendar in a moment
<d1b2>
<azonenberg> also poke @miek__ @bvernoux @hansemro @louis8374 about rescheduling the december dev call
<d1b2>
<azonenberg> and @aleksorsist
<d1b2>
<david.rysk> @sven too?
<d1b2>
<azonenberg> and @lainpants
<d1b2>
<david.rysk> @svenpeter42 too?
<d1b2>
<azonenberg> (reminder to the channel... dev meetings are open to anyone, although I specifically schedule around the most active contributors since I want their feedback in particular)
<d1b2>
<johnsel> unfortunately I already have a call scheduled then
<d1b2>
<azonenberg> Ok, can we push a little later? 11?
<d1b2>
<azonenberg> (pacific time)
<d1b2>
<johnsel> I can make that work yes
<d1b2>
<azonenberg> Ok, if nobody else has a conflict then we'll do it then
<d1b2>
<azonenberg> I'll give people a little time to check calendars then confirm the time late today if there's no objections
<d1b2>
<azonenberg> zoom link will be shared in the channel shortly before it starts