ci: drop libsframe installation step #207
Conversation
|
/cc @qmonnet |
|
From the run of the workflow on this PR (https://github.com/libbpf/bpftool/actions/runs/16645056306/job/47103644692?pr=207#step:4:11) it looks like |
|
😱 Good catch, thank you!
Yes, I wouldn't have managed to merge the change otherwise. But I hadn't realise it was already present.
Yes, please! Let's just remove it |
The intent of the step was that libsframe1 should be installed when running the workflow on the ubuntu-24.04 runner. However, the condition mistakenly checks for the step being run on the ubuntu-20.04 runner, so it's currently a no-op. The workflow passed without this step being run. Thus, we can assume libsframe1 was installed as a transitive dependency in the previous step and the libsframe installation step can be removed altogether. Fixes: 6180da5 ("ci: Add Ubuntu 24.04 runner (with ugly hack for static libbfd)") Signed-off-by: Tobias Klauser <[email protected]>
Done and updated commit message/PR description. |
tklauser
changed the title
|
Sorry, did you forget to update the commit? It's still the same on my side (update |
tklauser
force-pushed
the
ci-ubuntu-fix-libsframe-install
branch
from
3c0cf2a to
fe42b42
Compare
|
🤦 Sorry, I wrote the comment and updated the PR description but forgot to push the actual commit. Done now. |
2 participants
The intent of the step was that libsframe1 should be installed when
running the workflow on the ubuntu-24.04 runner. However, the condition
mistakenly checks for the step being run on the ubuntu-20.04 runner,
so it's currently a no-op. The workflow passed without this step being
run. Thus, we can assume libsframe1 was installed as a transitive
dependency in the previous step and the libsframe installation step can
be removed altogether.
Fixes: 6180da5 ("ci: Add Ubuntu 24.04 runner (with ugly hack for static libbfd)")