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

feat: linux compatible arch for ppc64/ppc64le #987

Conversation

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@pdemonaco
Copy link
Contributor

pdemonaco commented Mar 19, 2019

If applied, this commit will allow goreleaser to generate rpm packages for ppc64 and ppc64le targets which include the correct architecture in the SPEC definition.

feat: linux compatible arch for ppc64/ppc64le
Maps linuxppc64 and linuxppc64le to the standard ppc64 and ppc64le
nomenclature used in packages for these architectures.
@caarlos0

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

caarlos0 commented Mar 19, 2019

Hi, thanks for the PR!

I think this should be added here

the method you changed if I recall correctly is only used on snapcraft (maybe we should refactor that even)...

@codecov-io

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

codecov-io commented Mar 19, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #987 into master will decrease coverage by 0.14%.
The diff coverage is 0%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #987      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.05%   87.91%   -0.15%     
==========================================
  Files          52       52              
  Lines        2504     2508       +4     
==========================================
  Hits         2205     2205              
- Misses        236      240       +4     
  Partials       63       63
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
internal/linux/arch.go 76.47% <0%> (-23.53%) ⬇️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 6f2f760...6df8771. Read the comment docs.

@pdemonaco

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

pdemonaco commented Mar 19, 2019

Interesting. I was going to make my change in nfpm at that exact location initially but it was unclear how to actually test it. I'm working on adding ppc64/ppc64le to another project which is built with goreleaser so I've been using that project to test.

I can confirm that making the change here does work and is passed to nfpm - here's the lookup.

In this case, I added the target architectures to an existing projects .goreleaser.yml and performed a test release using my locally built version of goreleaser with this change.

If I were to add it to that table in nfpm what values should I map? linuxppc64 and linuxppc64le?

edit: Added a link to the current code.

@caarlos0

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

caarlos0 commented Mar 19, 2019

If I were to add it to that table in nfpm what values should I map? linuxppc64 and linuxppc64le?

yes, you can start with that, we can change more later... there are some acceptance tests that you can play with to check the changes...

@pdemonaco

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

pdemonaco commented Mar 19, 2019

OK. I've added a replacement PR against goreleaser/nfpm which should deliver the same functionality.

@caarlos0

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

caarlos0 commented Mar 20, 2019

actually, this PR is needed indeed... the other on the nfpm side wasn't required...

will merge this and do the needed things on nfpm, thanks!

@caarlos0 caarlos0 merged commit adb6b94 into goreleaser:master Mar 20, 2019

2 of 4 checks passed

codecov/patch 0% of diff hit (target 88.05%)
Details
codecov/project 87.91% (-0.15%) compared to 6f2f760
Details
WIP ready for review
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details

@pdemonaco pdemonaco deleted the pdemonaco:feat/linux-ppc64-and-ppc64le-arch-targets branch Mar 20, 2019

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.