Skip to content

Add architecture ppc64le to travis build #94

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

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

zazzel
Copy link

@zazzel zazzel commented Dec 16, 2020

Hi,
I had added ppc64le(Linux on Power) architecture support on Travis-CI in the PR and looks like its been successfully added. I believe it is ready for the final review and merge. The Travis-CI build logs can be verified from the link below.
https://travis-ci.com/github/zazzel/gulp-rename
Reason behind running tests on ppc64le: This package is included in the ppc64le versions of RHEL and Ubuntu - this allows the top of tree to be tested continuously as it is for Intel, making it easier to catch any possible regressions on ppc64le before the distros begin their clones and builds. This reduces the work in integrating this package into future versions of RHEL/Ubuntu.

Please have a look.

Thank you

Add architecture ppc64le to travis build
@yocontra
Copy link
Collaborator

@zazzel Why would this package work any differently on another CPU architecture? If node works on that architecture, this module works - there is no native code or even any file system access in this package. I understand the purpose but you should only be opening these on projects that contain native code + node itself.

@zazzel
Copy link
Author

zazzel commented Dec 18, 2020

Hi @contra, Based on previous build for other NodeJS packages, There was some "dependency" or "dependencies on native code" missing, Resulting build failures. To ensure all of the testcase got pass along with build on ppc64le Arch at TravisCI. We have to test with ppc64le CPU architecture. Tagging @gerrith3

@zazzel zazzel closed this Nov 30, 2022
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