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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

AppVeyor builds for Pharo on Windows fail because there's no i686 architecture #32

Open
theseion opened this issue May 17, 2021 · 4 comments · May be fixed by #33
Open

AppVeyor builds for Pharo on Windows fail because there's no i686 architecture #32

theseion opened this issue May 17, 2021 · 4 comments · May be fixed by #33

Comments

@theseion
Copy link

theseion commented May 17, 2021 •
edited
Loading

The zeroconf script reads i686 as architecture from AppVeyor for Windows builds. This is correct but there is no associated VM. The script used to select a correct VM before the architecture was included in the filename.

Example: https://ci.appveyor.com/project/theseion/fuel/build/job/w0wvw4vq2lx01dj2
@theseion theseion changed the title AppVeyor builds for Pharo fail because there's no i686 architecture AppVeyor builds for Pharo on Windows fail because there's no i686 architecture May 18, 2021
@theseion theseion linked a pull request May 26, 2021 that will close this issue
Open
@theseion
Copy link
Author

I've opened #33. It adds a case statement to try and map the architecture to something sensible. I've also regenerated the scripts for Pharo 9 only.

@theseion
Copy link
Author

Since there are no longer any 32-bit VM's for Pharo 9+ this issue is moot. The issue arose because of a misconfiguration that led to the platform being 32-bit instead of 64-bit, hence the different architecture.

@guillep
Copy link
Member

guillep commented May 27, 2021

Hi Max, there should be 32 bit vms for Pharo9+. Of course there are no for OSX, but for some unixes it happens (like raspbians), and windows (modulo you can run bash).

I'm running with deadlines, but I'll take care of it ASAP, this is important :)

@guillep guillep reopened this May 27, 2021
@theseion
Copy link
Author

Great, thanks!

In that case, I think we should probably use a common identifier for 32-bit architecture, except for special ones (like we have for ARM 64). I would suggest x86, that's probably common enough for people to know what it means. Then we can map all ix86 architectures to x86.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Handle known architectures with case statement theseion/pharo-zeroconf
2 participants
@theseion @guillep