Add 32 bits armhf arch to the Image

[aalaesar]

Add 32 bits arm architecture resources to the go-build image.

This build has been tested for cross-compiling the arm calico images locally

[aalaesar]

Hmm ??
CI passed OK while running nothing ... Is this ok ?
I have confirmation the Dockerfile.arm has a base image issue that should make the CI fail

[lmm]

/sem-approve

[lwr20]

CI passed OK while running nothing ... Is this ok ?
I have confirmation the Dockerfile.arm has a base image issue that should make the CI fail

Looks like CI doesn't have a build for arm. You'll need to add it to this list:
https://github.com/projectcalico/go-build/blob/master/.semaphore/semaphore.yml#L60

[aalaesar]

CI passed OK while running nothing ... Is this ok ?
I have confirmation the Dockerfile.arm has a base image issue that should make the CI fail

Looks like CI doesn't have a build for arm. You'll need to add it to this list:
https://github.com/projectcalico/go-build/blob/master/.semaphore/semaphore.yml#L60

Hello
I added armhf to semaphore.yml

[aalaesar]

hello @lmm @lwr20 ,
how is the ci on semaphore 2 ?
I can't have feedback of integration issues until I try to build other components:

• Just fixed a missing GOARCH conversion for armv5-7 (found this one while testing builds locally for calicoctl)

also, I suppose this PR must be merged & tagged in priority for the other components to start building correctly on other CI because of the armhf addition.

[lwr20]

/sem-approve

[lwr20]

CI Passed on sem v2.

[aalaesar]

CI Passed on sem v2.

Yes thank you @lwr20
unfortunately the integration test with upstream projects only partially cover the changes for ARCH=armhf. (At least there is no regression with the introduction of GOARCH_FLAGS.) but the arch name conversion issue I fixed today couldn't have been detected by the CI.
I'm afraid this is a chicken-egg problem: can't test armhf on upstream because upstream has no support for it yet ; upstream has no support for armhf because this PR is not merged yet.

So, what can be done ?

[lwr20]

@fasaxc ^ Would appreciate your thoughts on this.

[fasaxc]

I see a lot of these warnings in the build output from docker:

[Warning] The requested image's platform (linux/arm) does not match the detected host platform (linux/amd64) and no specific platform was requested

Has something gone awry there?

[aalaesar]

I see a lot of these warnings in the build output from docker:

[Warning] The requested image's platform (linux/arm) does not match the detected host platform (linux/amd64) and no specific platform was requested

Has something gone awry there?

yes
I noted the warnings too and checked the test for arm64,
they were also here so I supposed it was not a regression,
but, on second thought, it was a test on the same branch, maybe the warnings are just for this PR ? how to check ?

[aalaesar]

Has something gone awry there?

@fasaxc
Just saw that I could check all the semaphore tests
so the warning appeared on the arm64 & ppc64le builds last week on this commit with no major changes.

A quick google suggest this could be related to a docker update to 20.10+ on the semaphore platform. The engine change how it reports arch "misconfiguration?" (not clear). see this comment.

Some changes may be required to get rid of this warning but this is not the scope of the PR.

[fasaxc]

Let's give this a shot

[fasaxc]

@aalaesar Please join the Calico slack #contributors channel so we can coordinate and discuss the remaining work...