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.

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

charm-tools 2.8.x snap only releases for amd64; need arm64, ppc64el and s390x releases #666

Open
3 tasks done
ajkavanagh opened this issue Sep 4, 2023 · 3 comments · Fixed by #667
Open
3 tasks done

Comments

@ajkavanagh
Copy link
Contributor

Checklist

  • Confirmed this is an issue with charm-tools, not charmstore-client
  • Provide versions of tools used
  • Described the feature or ways to replicate the issue

Issue

When trying to release v2.8.7 of charm-tools in the snapstore, I noticed that there were no builds available to release into arm64, ppc64el and s390x. This means that the tools to build them will miss features, bug fixes and security updates. The 2.8 branch was made amd64 only in commit 98edcd3.

Solution

Update the snap/snapcraft.yaml to produce builds for arm64, ppc64el and s390x and get them building and into the snapstore.

freyes added a commit to freyes/charm-tools that referenced this issue Oct 12, 2023
setuptools-scm depends on setuptools>=61, while the one installed in the
building environment is setuptools-59.x which comes from the deb package
available in Ubuntu-22.04.

This change upgrades setuptools to allow the building to succeed. Also
uses an absolute path when running `vergit` to fix a "command not found"
error.

Fixes juju#666
@freyes freyes mentioned this issue Oct 12, 2023
1 task
@fnordahl
Copy link
Collaborator

@ajkavanagh I'm not sure if the referenced PR fixes this issue?

One of the main reasons the project was split into 2.8 and 3.x versions was that due to changes in adjacent projects some of the 2.8 versions dependencies are no longer maintained.

As laid out in commit 17812f0 one of these are bhttp, and since it no longer builds with modern snapcraft versions we made a tactical decision to consume it from the bhttp snap.

The bhttp snap is only available for amd64.

@fnordahl fnordahl reopened this Oct 13, 2023
@freyes
Copy link
Contributor

freyes commented Oct 25, 2023

@ajkavanagh I'm not sure if the referenced PR fixes this issue?

you are right, Frode, thanks for reopening this.

One of the main reasons the project was split into 2.8 and 3.x versions was that due to changes in adjacent projects some of the 2.8 versions dependencies are no longer maintained.

As laid out in commit 17812f0 one of these are bhttp, and since it no longer builds with modern snapcraft versions we made a tactical decision to consume it from the bhttp snap.

The bhttp snap is only available for amd64.

I just understood what's going on here. bhttp snap is only available in latest/edge for arm64, while amd64 snap is in latest/stable, I think this is where the issue comes from.

$ snap info bhttp
name:      bhttp
summary:   Macaroon-aware HTTP command line client
publisher: rog
store-url: https://snapcraft.io/bhttp
license:   unset
description: |
  The bhttp snap provides the bhttp command line tool which
  replicates the command-line interface of httpie but will also
  automatically obtain macaroon-based authentication when
  required by the server.
commands:
  - bhttp
snap-id:      Lyh4DOELsVckHXsTHgNFkLNGoQjT3Um5
tracking:     latest/edge
refresh-date: today at 17:04 -03
channels:
  latest/stable:    –                                 
  latest/candidate: –                                 
  latest/beta:      –                                 
  latest/edge:      0+git.8623f22 2019-06-13 (32) 3MB -
installed:          0+git.8623f22            (32) 3MB -

@freyes
Copy link
Contributor

freyes commented Oct 25, 2023

I'm rebuilding the charm snap using bhttp/latest/edge

@freyes freyes mentioned this issue Oct 31, 2023
3 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants