travis: Actually build for arm#3467
Conversation
|
@cdecker do you prefer that I force push or create |
|
|
f5355ee to
319b5b1
Compare
|
This will have to be rebased again when #3464 is merged. |
319b5b1 to
e758549
Compare
|
Rebased on master... |
|
Sigh. Still doesn't build :( |
|
I'll take a look at it. I'm a bit surprised though since it built locally for me. |
c763239 to
e88b2e2
Compare
|
It seems like we were over-caching a bit when the whole directory I had to start building Now it seems like I dug up a bunch of issues since CI probably has used old versions of external dependencies for a while. |
|
At least armhf and aarch64 builds now 🎉. However there are some failures which I don't know how to deal with: Could this be that libwally doesn't support gcc-4.8 or have we introduced this breaking change some other time? Pretty sure this PR doesn't introduce this regression. I have no idea: |
|
gcc 4.8 is ancient. Still, let me see if we can wrangle it using more configure hacks... Ah, libwally. I've filed a bug ElementsProject/libwally-core#176 |
|
It seems a fix has been merged in in libwally upstream. Will wait until new release is out and then bump the dependency. |
|
Since we updated libwally (#3559) I rebased this on top of |
|
Looks better, but still some test that fails... |
|
I hacked it to not assume gcc, too. Let's see how this goes... |
dda30c2 to
4ba1cd2
Compare
|
I think it should be possible to reproduce the CI failure locally since now it's part of the tests that fail and not just compilation problems. I don't have much knowledge about lightning-c so it would take too much time for me to dig into it. |
4ba1cd2 to
bf2419d
Compare
|
Trivial rebase |
|
This is a complete mess, I'm assigning to @cdecker. Perhaps it's something to do with caching, since there are complaints that "lightningd/lightningd" DNE. |
Before this we cached the whole `external` directory, but that lead to stale files since the cache is checked out after the repository is cloned.
|
After rebasing it appears that the build passes correctly. @NickeZ can you confirm that this is what you'd expect? If it is working I'm happy to merge it asap :-) |
|
Yeah sure, I think this PR still is valid. |
|
ACK 2a83825 |
Fixes #3466
Changelog-None