You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
So ELN, which is our buildroot, is compiled for x86_64-v3 (see here). People are running into issues regularly where they're running bootc-image-builder on older Xeon hardware that do not support this level of the architecture.
It's probably a good idea to error out much earlier if the sublevel is not supported.
We can use the output of ld.so --help for this.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This also touches on #18 because if our very first step is to fetch the target image and execute it (say running true as a sanity check), we will fail at least pretty early on.
IOW we don't need a "buildroot" if the target container is the installer, which compresses complexity here.
Now...there's also the whole larger question of which base image this project uses. I would say that from now, we should use UBI9. But going forward we'll almost certainly need to support being based on multiple distribution/OS bases too (a lot of things here around tie-in to the build process of different OSes/distributions).
So ELN, which is our buildroot, is compiled for
x86_64-v3
(see here). People are running into issues regularly where they're runningbootc-image-builder
on older Xeon hardware that do not support this level of the architecture.It's probably a good idea to error out much earlier if the sublevel is not supported.
We can use the output of
ld.so --help
for this.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: