On 9/22/2026 10:35 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 10:16:27AM -0700, Pierrick Bouvier wrote:
>> On 9/22/2026 9:54 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 09:15:02AM -0700, Pierrick Bouvier wrote:
>>>> On 9/21/2026 4:14 PM, Pierrick Bouvier wrote:
>>>>> latest update of libvirt-ci changed packages, but images were not
>>>>> refreshed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Pierrick Bouvier <[email protected]>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  tests/docker/dockerfiles/debian.docker     | 1 -
>>>>>  tests/docker/dockerfiles/ubuntu2404.docker | 1 -
>>>>>  2 files changed, 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/tests/docker/dockerfiles/debian.docker 
>>>>> b/tests/docker/dockerfiles/debian.docker
>>>>> index 77869f71546..2d03ff03c8d 100644
>>>>> --- a/tests/docker/dockerfiles/debian.docker
>>>>> +++ b/tests/docker/dockerfiles/debian.docker
>>>>> @@ -73,7 +73,6 @@ RUN export DEBIAN_FRONTEND=noninteractive && \
>>>>>                        libpcre2-dev \
>>>>>                        libpipewire-0.3-dev \
>>>>>                        libpixman-1-dev \
>>>>> -                      libpmem-dev \
>>>>>                        libpng-dev \
>>>>>                        libpulse-dev \
>>>>>                        librbd-dev \
>>>>> diff --git a/tests/docker/dockerfiles/ubuntu2404.docker 
>>>>> b/tests/docker/dockerfiles/ubuntu2404.docker
>>>>> index bb8f4e4e53f..440699a5005 100644
>>>>> --- a/tests/docker/dockerfiles/ubuntu2404.docker
>>>>> +++ b/tests/docker/dockerfiles/ubuntu2404.docker
>>>>> @@ -73,7 +73,6 @@ RUN export DEBIAN_FRONTEND=noninteractive && \
>>>>>                        libpcre2-dev \
>>>>>                        libpipewire-0.3-dev \
>>>>>                        libpixman-1-dev \
>>>>> -                      libpmem-dev \
>>>>>                        libpng-dev \
>>>>>                        libpulse-dev \
>>>>>                        librbd-dev \
>>>>
>>>> Dropping this patch, as it's incorrect.
>>>> In libvirt-ci, libpmem-dev is a dependency of targets debian-13 and
>>>> ubuntu2404, so not sure why it removes it here. Seems like a bug in
>>>> libvirt-ci itself.
>>>
>>> Most likely you ran invoked lcitool from an aarch64 host OS, so it
>>> filtered out libpmem-dev which is only valid on x86_64 targets.
>>> The non-cross containers we have defined here are assumed to be
>>> for x86_64 targets.
>>>
>>> We should change the tests/lcitool/refresh script in QEMU to pass
>>> '--host-arch x86_64' to lcitool, rather than defaulting to the
>>> developers' machine's arch.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the sharing the reason, I'll add this option.
>>
>> Out of curiosity, what's the reason to differentiate generation based on
>> host arch?
>> Wouldn't that be better to be explicit if you want to generate an arch
>> specific Dockerfile (and use FROM docker.io/arch/... instead of
>> docker.io/library)?
> 
> I'm not familiar with docker.io/arch/ but this all just grew up
> organically over time, and since most usage was x86_64 host based
> there  was not much need to think about other scenarios.
>

Basically, it's (official) docker images per arch, following docker
platform naming:
- docker.io/amd64
- docker.io/aarch64

https://github.com/docker-library/official-images#architectures-other-than-amd64

Advantage is that image are provided for a specific platform, which
avoid some of the issue multi plaform images have.

For instance, on aarch64 host:
$ podman run --platform linux/amd64 docker.io/library/debian:latest true
$ podman run docker.io/library/debian:latest true
WARNING: image platform (linux/amd64) does not match the expected
platform (linux/arm64)
# podman/docker now select the amd64 version by default, which can break
build of other containers. It's a design issue with docker cli IMHO.

> If we want the tests/docker/dockerfiles to be portable to non-x86
> hosts, then we'd need to either have many dockerfiles there for
> each arch, or drop packages that are arch specific from the
> install list.
>

I'll add the --host-arch x86_64 option to lcitool as recommended, which
should be enough for our need.

> With regards,
> Daniel

Regards,
Pierrick

Reply via email to