Fix svm installation on CI by updating Docker image #87
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
syntrust
reviewed
Aug 20, 2025
|
This is some additional information:
|
Could we use the same base image in the first place? |
Author
The official version is 2 images, one is the latest version, and the other is 2024.01. There may be problems with unification, as the gap between the two versions is a bit large. |
I mean we're using the same docker image as upstream, if it works for upstream, it should also work for us, is this correct? |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Our CI uses two different base images. Since both share the same cache key, svm built on a higher-glibc image was restored on a lower-glibc image, causing runtime failures.
Solution
Introduce cache isolation by differentiating cache keys per base image (or enforce a single base image across jobs).
CI: