Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

CI: drop s390x and ppc64le, add aarch64 #615

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

sgallagher
Copy link
Collaborator

The Github action we use to run non-x86_64 tests recently dropped support for Fedora on s390x and ppc64le for unknown reasons. This patch removes them from the test matrix, but adds back in aarch64 support.

@ppisar
Copy link
Collaborator

ppisar commented Jan 29, 2024

I see. uraimo removed themit in commit uraimo/run-on-arch-action@18a5cd7.

g-ir-scanner segfaulted in the new Aarch64 test. I will have to check what's wrong with it.

Signed-off-by: Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@redhat.com>
@ppisar
Copy link
Collaborator

ppisar commented Jan 29, 2024

I cannot reproduce the segfault in Koji https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=112553432. I will retry the CI test.

@ppisar ppisar self-assigned this Jan 29, 2024
@sgallagher
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I'm actually going to split this into two patches (one to add aarch64 and the other to drop ppc64le and s390x) to make it easier to revert the drop if we can get those re-added to uraimo's action.

Support was dropped from the action we were using for this.

Signed-off-by: Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@redhat.com>
@sgallagher
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I looked into this; apparently the run-on-arch Action uses qemu-static to run it emulated. I just tried using qemu-static to run a Fedora container manually and perform the build and I hit the same crash. It looks like it's a Qemu emulation bug and not one of ours.

Should we just abandon the multiarch.yaml entirely?

@ppisar
Copy link
Collaborator

ppisar commented Jan 30, 2024

Yes. multiarch.yaml does not make sense in the current state.

We could probably augment .packit.yml to test on other architectures. See https://packit.dev/docs/configuration#aliases and https://packit.dev/docs/configuration/upstream/copr_build#available-copr-build-targets. copr-cli list-chroots reports aarch64, ppc64le, s390x, and x86_64 architectures for all Fedoras and ELN for me.

@sgallagher
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Yes. multiarch.yaml does not make sense in the current state.

We could probably augment .packit.yml to test on other architectures. See https://packit.dev/docs/configuration#aliases and https://packit.dev/docs/configuration/upstream/copr_build#available-copr-build-targets. copr-cli list-chroots reports aarch64, ppc64le, s390x, and x86_64 architectures for all Fedoras and ELN for me.

Yeah, that's probably the best approach. In the meantime, I'll close this PR and submit a new one that drops multiarch.yaml entirely.

@sgallagher sgallagher closed this Jan 30, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants