Code change:
COPY host-x86_64/dist-x86_64-linux/build-binutils.sh /tmp/ RUN ./build-binutils.sh <del> # libssh2 (a dependency of Cargo) requires cmake 2.8.11 or higher but CentOS # only has 2.6.4, so build our own COPY host-x86_64/dist-x86_64-linux/build-cmake.sh /tmp/ RUN ./build-cmake.sh # Need a newer version of gcc than centos has to compile LLVM nowadays </del> <ins> # Need at least GCC 5.1 to compile LLVM nowadays </ins> COPY host-x86_64/dist-x86_64-linux/build-gcc.sh /tmp/ <del> RUN ./build-gcc.sh </del> <ins> RUN ./build-gcc.sh && apt-get remove -y gcc g++ </ins> <del> # CentOS 5.5 has Python 2.4 by default, but LLVM needs 2.7+ </del> <ins> # Debian 6 has Python 2.6 by default, but LLVM needs 2.7+ </ins> COPY host-x86_64/dist-x86_64-linux/build-python.sh /tmp/ RUN ./build-python.sh <del> # Now build LLVM+Clang 7, afterwards configuring further compilations to use the </del> <ins> # LLVM needs cmake 3.4.3 or higher, and is planning to raise to 3.13.4. COPY host-x86_64/dist-x86_64-linux/build-cmake.sh /tmp/ RUN ./build-cmake.sh # Now build LLVM+Clang, afterwards configuring further compilations to use the </ins> # clang/clang++ compilers. <del> COPY host-x86_64/dist-x86_64-linux/build-clang.sh host-x86_64/dist-x86_64-linux/llvm-project-centos.patch /tmp/ </del> <ins> COPY host-x86_64/dist-x86_64-linux/build-clang.sh /tmp/ </ins> RUN ./build-clang.sh ENV CC=clang CXX=clang++ <del> # Apparently CentOS 5.5 desn't have `git` in yum, but we're gonna need it for # cloning, so download and build it here. COPY host-x86_64/dist-x86_64-linux/build-git.sh /tmp/ RUN ./build-git.sh # for sanitizers, we need kernel headers files newer than the ones CentOS ships # with so we install newer ones here COPY host-x86_64/dist-x86_64-linux/build-headers.sh /tmp/ RUN ./build-headers.sh # OpenSSL requires a more recent version of perl # with so we install newer ones here COPY host-x86_64/dist-x86_64-linux/build-perl.sh /tmp/ RUN ./build-perl.sh </del> COPY scripts/sccache.sh /scripts/ RUN sh /scripts/sccache.sh

Related discussion:
text: EDIT: For our use case in , we were able to add compatibility for RHEL 5 .
See for a recent case where supporting such ancient kernels required extra manual work ( to the 2 lines mentioned by above). I am not sure how often that comes up, but probably the hardest part is to even notice that it happens -- and even then those codepaths will likely linger untested.
Yes, but this will still be true in general. If the CI kernel is newer than whatever kernel baseline we choose, it will be possible for newer syscalls to pass undetected. I don't know if we have any control over that -- can we choose a particular VM image? So that leaves us with a stated policy of support. The more that developers are aware of such issues, the better, but I'm the one most likely to notice when my build actually fails. If I come back with a fix, I at least need the project to be receptive. I haven't been in the habit of building nightly on our RHEL6 builders, but maybe I should! Catching this early is better for everyone involved...
That seems reasonable. How quick is the Rust related bootstrapping? Could it be run automatically (or more frequently)? This is an interesting point. If I hadn't made that change, would have kept working on RHEL 5, it just would have leaked an FD. I'm not sure how we would even test for this sort of thing. This isn't a RHEL 5 specific concern, I just don't know how Rust tests these types of resource leak issues in general.
About 2 hours. Automation is harder, since I believe our build system needs my credentials, but I'll look into what is possible here. Yeah, that's a lot more subtle than an !