-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 37
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
Add bullseye variant of 9.6.6 images #137
Conversation
54e875a
to
e1e194b
Compare
Hi, I still can't see any 9.6.6-bullseye jobs on aarch64 so far |
There you go, added 9.10 and 9.6 aarch64 jobs. |
As long as it passes tests, yes, it's probably fine. I've tried it myself, but it failed for some reason. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fix deps (my bad originally, for which I'm sorry)
Looking at your PR (which I didn't notice exists 😅 ) I see you got the same error as me
..which I fixed by adding explicit docker_platform argument here |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, thank you
oh that's how it's done. Thank you! |
I'm trying to emulate what was done for 9.10 in #134
I basically copy-pasted buster dockerfiles, and just changed deb10 -> deb11 (+ updated checksums).
After noticing that deb11 variant of 9.6.6 ghc binaries don't exist, I asked on ghc matrix and Julian Osphald (ghcup dev) told me it shouldn't matter, because deb10 binaries should be binary compatible with deb11, so I should use those insead.
Here's the output of
git diff --no-index 9.6/slim-buster/Dockerfile 9.6/slim-bullseye/Dockerfile
which makes it clearer how the new bullseye images differ from buster ones.