Hi Kambiz, Le mardi 05 avril 2022 à 23:13 +0200, Kambiz Darabi a écrit : > > > Now for the broken i386 build: make-config.sh relies on the > > > result of uname -m to determine the architecture and indeed, > > > the i386 build container reports x86_64: > > > > > > https://salsa.debian.org/darabi-guest/sbcl/-/jobs/2640765#L1327 > > > > > > And setting SBCL_ARCH explicitly in debian/rules as it is done > > > already for ppc64 leads to further problems: > > > > > > https://salsa.debian.org/darabi-guest/sbcl/-/jobs/2641145#L1579 > > > > > > Any hint how to continue? > > > > I would not change the i386 sbcl build for now. It has always worked > > fine on Debian build daemons, which is what truly matters. > > I made a mistake, this would be the correct change to fix i386 on Salsa > (setting SBCL_ARCH to x86): > > https://salsa.debian.org/darabi-guest/sbcl/-/commit/bb406e18ace0531956e16c2448cf68714fa99c02 > > which leads to a green i386 build: > > https://salsa.debian.org/darabi-guest/sbcl/-/pipelines/365741 > > > I think I would first contact the maintainers of the Salsa CI runners > > to understand why “uname -m” reports x86_64 instead of i686 in the i386 > > chroots. > > On IRC channel #salsaci, they told me that the Docker image is already > an i386 one, so not much that can be done from that side. > > And calling uname -m in a running Docker image seems to always report > the host architecture. > > Awaiting your decision regarding SBCL_ARCH. Your i386 change looks reasonable to me, and it should not break anything. But I’m not the one who’s going to make the final decision. It’s your responsibility now! 😄️ Best, -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Sébastien Villemot ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://sebastien.villemot.name ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ https://www.debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part