recipes/myloasm built for linux-aarch64 at 0.5.1, but the platform was commented out in the 0.6.0 update (#66876):
additional-platforms:
- - linux-aarch64
+ #- linux-aarch64
- osx-arm64Published artifacts agree: linux-aarch64 exists for 0.5.1 and no later version.
That PR was described as a manual fix for the broken autobump in #66875 (adding a zlib dependency), so I suspect commenting out aarch64 was an expedient to get the build green rather than a lasting decision — but I may be wrong, hence the question rather than a PR.
Suggested fix, if the build is in fact healthy now:
extra:
additional-platforms:
- linux-aarch64
- osx-arm64If aarch64 genuinely fails for 0.6.0, would you mind leaving the reason as a comment next to the commented-out line? That way downstream consumers can tell a deliberate skip from an accident.
cc @bluenote-1577 (recipe maintainer)
Context: I maintain aarchbio, which republishes bioconda packages as native arm64 containers, so this showed up as a regression on our side (we currently publish 0.5.1). Happy to open the PR.
recipes/myloasmbuilt forlinux-aarch64at 0.5.1, but the platform was commented out in the 0.6.0 update (#66876):Published artifacts agree:
linux-aarch64exists for 0.5.1 and no later version.That PR was described as a manual fix for the broken autobump in #66875 (adding a
zlibdependency), so I suspect commenting out aarch64 was an expedient to get the build green rather than a lasting decision — but I may be wrong, hence the question rather than a PR.Suggested fix, if the build is in fact healthy now:
If aarch64 genuinely fails for 0.6.0, would you mind leaving the reason as a comment next to the commented-out line? That way downstream consumers can tell a deliberate skip from an accident.
cc @bluenote-1577 (recipe maintainer)
Context: I maintain aarchbio, which republishes bioconda packages as native arm64 containers, so this showed up as a regression on our side (we currently publish 0.5.1). Happy to open the PR.