Pierrick Bouvier <[email protected]> writes: > On 1/27/26 1:28 AM, Alex Bennée wrote: >> Richard Henderson <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> On 1/27/26 10:50, Alex Bennée wrote: >>>> I think it was broken by 4203ea0247f (gitlab-ci: Add build tests for >>>> wasm64) because we base the tests of the existence of dockerfiles and it >>>> now generates multiple targets. >>>> Do we actually use the wasm32 stuff anymore? Maybe we can just >>>> rename it? >>> >>> All of the wasm32 stuff is supposed to be gone. >> I think [email protected] should fix >> it, >> but I need to re-read how to trigger the weekly build on my test branch >> to test it. >> >>> >>> r~ >> > > What if docker-verify was depending on building the container locally > instead? It would allow to have a self-contained command, that works > the same in local, or in CI, without any yaml dependencies. > > With current approach, it's tricky to reproduce locally as it depends > on global gitlab registry, while we are just trying to see if images > is buildable from scratch or not.
No - the point of verify was to check we where building in the registry. A lot of the Makefile.include stuff is legacy now (although its a useful wrapper for building tests locally) because gitlab invokes the containers directly. We used to do all sorts of dependency handling as well but the lcitool approach is a lot cleaner even if we don't get layered containers. > > The fact it's hard to guess how to test such a change exposes that > there is a problem to reproduce this, even for the original author. -- Alex Bennée Virtualisation Tech Lead @ Linaro
