Determine CPU architecture with $basearch

[rsevilla87]

Signed-off-by: Raul Sevilla rsevilla@redhat.com

Description

Thanks to the yum variable $basearch, we can optimize how we use centos8 repositories, and get rid of ppc64le specific repos.

Fixes

Some arm64 image builds fail in CI because we don't set architecture correctly

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #350 (cd1bb0d) into master (8b69368) will not change coverage. The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #350   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   39.40%   39.40%           
=======================================
  Files          15       15           
  Lines         868      868           
=======================================
  Hits          342      342           
  Misses        526      526           

Flag	Coverage Δ
gha	39.40% <ø> (ø)
python-3.6	39.40% <ø> (ø)
unit	39.40% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data Powered by Codecov. Last update 8b69368...cd1bb0d. Read the comment docs.

[comet-perf-ci]

Results for SNAFU CI Test

Test	Result	Runtime
Report\n>	FAIL	00:00:00

[comet-perf-ci]

Results for SNAFU CI Test

Test	Result	Runtime
snafu/hammerdb	FAIL	00:08:04
snafu/smallfile_wrapper	PASS	00:05:54
snafu/flent_wrapper	PASS	00:07:26
snafu/scale_openshift_wrapper	PASS	00:09:44
snafu/sysbench	PASS	00:02:41
snafu/benchmarks/uperf	PASS	00:24:19
snafu/image_pull_wrapper	PASS	00:03:05
snafu/ycsb_wrapper	PASS	00:04:51
snafu/stressng_wrapper	PASS	00:03:17
snafu/fio_wrapper	PASS	00:15:42
snafu/log_generator_wrapper	PASS	00:03:31
snafu/upgrade_openshift_wrapper	PASS	00:00:00
snafu/iperf	PASS	00:05:20
snafu/vegeta_wrapper	FAIL	00:11:18
snafu/fs_drift_wrapper	PASS	00:04:43
snafu/pgbench_wrapper	PASS	00:03:53

[rsevilla87]

/rerun all snafu/vegeta_wrapper

[comet-perf-ci]

Results for SNAFU CI Test

Test	Result	Runtime
snafu/vegeta_wrapper	FAIL	00:10:14

[rsevilla87]

/rerun all snafu/vegeta_wrapper

[comet-perf-ci]

Results for SNAFU CI Test

Test	Result	Runtime
snafu/vegeta_wrapper	PASS	00:05:55

[learnitall]

I'm not sure if modifying ppc64le images is in our scope, I think they are independent images some other folks are using and maintaining. @jtaleric can you chime in here on this? If we want to add ppc64le support on our end for our wrappers, I'd like it if we make the main Dockerfiles for our wrappers architecture-independent and just do a podman build --arch

[learnitall]

Looks like all the dnf steps are running successfully for arm64, this is a great change! Nice! More on the ppc64le- just remember we specifically ignore building ppc64le images in our CI due to this support discrepancy: https://github.com/cloud-bulldozer/benchmark-wrapper/blob/master/ci/build_matrix.py#L83

[rsevilla87]

Looks like all the dnf steps are running successfully for arm64, this is a great change! Nice! More on the ppc64le- just remember we specifically ignore building ppc64le images in our CI due to this support discrepancy: https://github.com/cloud-bulldozer/benchmark-wrapper/blob/master/ci/build_matrix.py#L83

Yeah, step by step, we can address ppc64le container building in a different PR. Let's try to make atomic changes :) However I hope we eventually can get rid of those ugly ppc64le Dockerfiles

[learnitall]

Ah I see, yeah that makes sense. I'm just hesitant about modifying some Dockerfiles that another team is using without their input. But on second thought the change is equivalent pretty much. I'm down.

[rsevilla87]

Ah I see, yeah that makes sense. I'm just hesitant about modifying some Dockerfiles that another team is using without their input. But on second thought the change is equivalent pretty much. I'm down.

yeah, let's make the affected people know about changes in ppc64le Dockerfiles once we do them :)