src/secp256k1/.cirrus.yml
83 ↗	(On Diff #58181)	the blank `AUTOTOOLS_TARGET` (aka `BUILD`) was removed in https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/846/changes/fcfcb97e74b55a107290d44c81c049d6168e954f but not in our backport D12960 for some reason. I'm trying to remove it so we run the tests (it defaults to `make check`, vs just `make` if blank)
85 ↗	(On Diff #58181)	removed in https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/1405 (resolved since libc 2.33. Debian Bookworm has libc 2.36)
170 ↗	(On Diff #58181)	Here I don't remember why I didn't run the cmake variant when I added ARM32. I probably assumed that it just wouldn't work because we don't support some platforms for the monorepo. Let's try to run it on ithub actions and see if it works.

Harbormaster completed remote builds in B36068: Diff 58181.Feb 3 2026, 18:09

we need matrix.configuration.env_vars for all tasks using *CI_SCRIPT_IN_DOCKER

Harbormaster completed remote builds in B36069: Diff 58183.Feb 3 2026, 20:49

PiRK published this revision for review.Feb 3 2026, 22:08

PiRK edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)Feb 3 2026, 22:26

re: testplan

push to github, wait for github actions to complete

is this effectively duplicated with our CI, what "goes green" in this diff? Or does this happen at the github mirror?

afaik we don't use Cirrus CI or github actions, so is this really just a maintenance backport to simplify catching up with more secp256k1 things?

otherwise, seems to match the backports mentioned

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Feb 3 2026, 23:38

In D19520#444149, @bytesofman wrote:

re: testplan

push to github, wait for github actions to complete

is this effectively duplicated with our CI, what "goes green" in this diff? Or does this happen at the github mirror?

afaik we don't use Cirrus CI or github actions, so is this really just a maintenance backport to simplify catching up with more secp256k1 things?

otherwise, seems to match the backports mentioned

It is running on the github mirror. The main point, besides testing more architectures that we don't necessarily support on our monorepo, is to ensure the standalone secp256k1 lib is not broken. D19504 is an example when we didn't break the monorepo but we broke the standalone secp256k1 build (because different assumptions, C++ was enabled in the monorepo but not in secp256k1).

Plus backporting everything roughly in the same order makes it easier than selecting pieces and omitting others (which causes conflicts when cherry-picking). Here we do create some conflicts by backporting something earlier than we should, but it is because Cirrus is broken and we lost CI coverage. I'm attempting to do it in a way that will make us eventually converge back to the same codebase as the source.

Closed by commit rABC03c16851b379: [secp256k1] ci, gha: Move more non-x86_64 tasks from Cirrus CI to GitHub Actions (authored by Hennadii Stepanov <32963518+hebasto@users.noreply.github.com>, committed by PiRK). · Explain WhyFeb 4 2026, 08:47

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.

PiRK added a commit: rABC03c16851b379: [secp256k1] ci, gha: Move more non-x86_64 tasks from Cirrus CI to GitHub Actions.