Pull Alpine/aarch64 tarball from unofficial builds as we do for Alpine/x64

Ouverte
#2,475 6 commentaires 0 réactions 0 personnes assignées Voir sur GitHub

Personne n'a encore pris cette issue.

Évaluation

Difficulté
4/5
Temps estimé
3-5 jours
Accessibilité débutants
45/100
Type d'issue
Fonctionnalité
Clarté
Plutôt claire
Activité
Calme
Stack technique
docker, node.js
Domaine
build-system, infrastructure

Piste de recherche

Commence par le processus de build de l’image Docker et compare la manière dont Alpine/x64 récupère les éléments depuis unofficial-builds. Lis unofficial-builds PR #189 et issue #200, y compris les notes concernant la compilation croisée et l’échec de SEA. Le travail est terminé lorsque Alpine/arm64 est traité de manière cohérente avec Alpine/x64, sans négliger les problèmes de build et de test mentionnés.

Rédigé par le modèle d'indexation à partir du texte de l'issue.

Description

alpine

Although unoffical-builds does produce an arm64 binary, it is not used by the images here. I think mixed among the recent-ish discussions was whether we should just drop even that pre-built, and just use the Docker infrastructure for all the Alpine variants.

While there are reasons that i won't go into here why that might be desirable, IMHO that would push it further away from the "regular" tier1/2 platforms. Since we're building it anyway (and people are downloading it independently of the docker images at a rate of about 1000/hour) I'd prefer the container image to have the identical build that we produce in the unofficial projects.

I'll spin off another issue about whether to process the unofficial Alpine/aarch64 built in the same way as Alpine/x64 since that's separate from Alpine/s390x.

Originally posted by @sxa in https://github.com/nodejs/docker-node/issues/2462#issuecomment-4287416228

The Alpine/aarch64 builds are far less popular than the figure listed above but since https://github.com/nodejs/unofficial-builds/pull/189 got merged we do now now have cross-compiled builds of Alpine/arm64 in the unofficilal-builds alone with x64 so we could follow the same process for both.

Notes:

  • It's cross compiled instead of build natively (May not be an option, but we don't have any cross-compiled builds yet which have the rust support working for temporal enablement yet ... But that's potentially a bigger problem). It's also a cross-compiled build which doesn't undergo any testing elsewhere in the node system. https://github.com/nodejs/unofficial-builds/issues/200 is a potential issue with the cross-compilated build (SEA failure)
  • There is a proposal to bump Alpine up to tier 2 which would change things again
  • With the removal of Alpine/s390x from node 26's container images, and Alpine/ppc64le having been removed some time ago, that only leaves Alpine/arm64 as the "dynamically built at image creation time" platform so this would ultimately help reduce complexity in the process.
Langage dominant
Dockerfile
Étoiles
8.6k
Forks
2k
Merge moyen
10 h 19 min
PR mergées (30 j)
16

Guide de contribution

Ouvrir le guide de contribution

Par où commencer

  1. Lisez l'issue en entier, puis le guide de contribution du projet.
  2. Signalez en commentaire que vous la prenez — cela évite que deux personnes fassent le même travail.
  3. Forkez le dépôt et travaillez sur une branche.
  4. Ouvrez une pull request qui référence le numéro de l'issue.

Autres issues de nodejs/docker-node

Toutes les issues de nodejs/docker-node

Issues similaires

Plus d'issues Build System

Recevez les nouvelles issues par e-mail

Un résumé court des issues GitHub adaptées aux débutants.