CI Utilisation and system efficiency

[Neal Gompa]

On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 3:26 PM Ben Cooksley <bcooksley at kde.org> wrote:
>
>
> When reviewing the list of CI builds projects have enabled, it is important to consider to what degree your project benefits from having various builds enabled. One common pattern i've seen is having Alpine, SUSE Qt 6.9 and SUSE Qt 6.10 all enabled.
>
> If you need to verify building on Alpine / MUSL type systems and wish to monitor for Qt Next regressions then you probably shouldn't have a conventional Linux Qt stable build as those two jobs between them already cover that list of permutations.
>

I disagree with this particular advice. Linux+musl should be
considered a separate platform from Linux+glibc just like we consider
Android (Linux+bionic) separate from Linux+glibc. There are enough
behavioral and API differences with musl vs glibc that even Qt and
other things can behave differently.

One example offhand is that musl has much weaker support for text
encodings than glibc and this can result in different outcomes for any
tests involving localization. DNS is also another thing that works
completely differently. There are also missing APIs in musl vs glibc,
which leads to Qt and other things doing things differently than what
you expect sometimes.



--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!