Skip to content

Conversation

@Jenkins-J
Copy link
Contributor

The platforms bazel module now defines a separate constraint for ppc6l4e. Utilize the new constraint value for the ppc64le architecture.

@Jenkins-J Jenkins-J requested review from a team and comius as code owners February 14, 2025 20:49
@hvadehra hvadehra requested review from hvadehra and removed request for a team and comius March 27, 2025 12:16
@hvadehra
Copy link
Member

@Jenkins-J Please fix CI. I think it should just be a matter of updating the @platforms dep in the WORKSPACE files as well:

def rules_java_dependencies():

@Jenkins-J
Copy link
Contributor Author

@hvadehra It looks like all the tests are passing. Thank you so much for your help!

@hvadehra
Copy link
Member

Thanks.

So, the existing ppc jdks were already for ppc64le but before this change we were using the less specific ppc cpu constraint from @platforms. So I think what we want to do is replace all references to ppc with ppc64le (instead of adding it additionally) and drop these hacky lines:

Please also sync to HEAD to resolve the merge conflict.

The platforms bazel module now defines a separate
constraint for ppc6l4e. Utilize the correct
constraint value for the ppc64le architecture.
Remove old references to the ppc platform
architecture.
@Jenkins-J Jenkins-J force-pushed the ppc64le-platforms-support branch from 857c9ab to a12036e Compare March 28, 2025 15:29
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 this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants