[RFC 1/1] tools: Dockerfile for armv7

[Tom Rini]

On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 09:14:13PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> On 10/28/22 21:04, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 12:03:30PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> > > On 10/16/22 09:43, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> > > > Provide an armv7 docker environment to build and test the sandbox.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt<heinrich.schuchardt at canonical.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > I have been discussing with Simon, if we can test sandbox_defconfig
> > > > build on arm in a docker container. This RFC is just a small step on
> > > > the path to it.
> > > 
> > > We also need a separate requirements.txt with pygit2==1.6.1 due the
> > > different version of libgit in the armhf version of Ubuntu Jammy.
> > 
> > So, what are the general best practices to have a Dockerfile that can be
> > / is used for generating multiple platforms worth of images? We should
> > aim for a single Dockerfile that can be used for x86-64, armv7 and
> > aarch64.
> 
> As we execute bash commands in the Dockerfile we could use if/fi and
> case/esac to work around differences between architectures.

For unavoidable differences, yes, OK.

> Except on amd64 we only want to execute the sandbox. So there is no need to
> build GRUB, QEMU, and swtmp/libtmps.

Why? There's no reason one shouldn't be able to run the whole of CI on
aarch64 hosts, unless there's QEMU bugs, or similar issues. The first
use might be just to do sandbox runs but I don't want to limit things
without strong reason ($X doesn't work, would be a good reason to
limit).

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20221028/1aa13c2c/attachment.sig>