Adding power support for this package to support arch independent #92
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I am working for IBM to port cpu arch ppc64le for open sources.
This PR adds CI support for the IBM Power Little Endian (ppc64le) architecture. The idea is to ensure that the builds on this architecture are continuously tested along with the Intel builds (amd64) as this is part of the ubuntu distro
on that architecture as well and detecting (and fixing) any issues or failures early would help to ensure that we are always up to date.
This helps us simplify testing later when distributions are re-building and re-releasing,We typically build applications for customers and ISVs, and while we don't use this package directly, we do count on all of the packages in debian/ubuntu to build other packages. So we more likely have this as a second or third level dependency and couldn't tell you explicitly which features we use or our usage model.
Please help to verify and merge.