Skip to content
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

The helix-22.12-aarch64.AppImage is actually for x86 #5237

Closed
st3fan opened this issue Dec 21, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #7832
Closed

The helix-22.12-aarch64.AppImage is actually for x86 #5237

st3fan opened this issue Dec 21, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #7832
Labels
A-packaging Area: Packaging and bundling C-bug Category: This is a bug

Comments

@st3fan
Copy link

st3fan commented Dec 21, 2022

From the 22.12 release page at https://github.com/helix-editor/helix/releases/tag/22.12

$ file helix-22.12-aarch64.AppImage
helix-22.12-aarch64.AppImage: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV),
  dynamically linked, interpreter /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2,
  BuildID[sha1]=9b0b692e9674b12a987463ee5486fdf2a2d3ff1b,
  for GNU/Linux 2.6.32, stripped
@the-mikedavis
Copy link
Member

Ah, looks like this is an oversight in the release CI's section for building the AppImage:

curl -Lo linuxdeploy-x86_64.AppImage \
https://github.com/linuxdeploy/linuxdeploy/releases/download/continuous/linuxdeploy-x86_64.AppImage
chmod +x linuxdeploy-x86_64.AppImage
./linuxdeploy-x86_64.AppImage \

We can't just use matrix.build there though, since linuxdeploy doesn't have an aarch64 build yet: linuxdeploy/linuxdeploy#175

@the-mikedavis the-mikedavis added C-bug Category: This is a bug A-packaging Area: Packaging and bundling labels Dec 21, 2022
@nebulabox
Copy link

Since the aarch64 version of AppImage cannot be compiled correctly, it should be removed

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-packaging Area: Packaging and bundling C-bug Category: This is a bug
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants