Suggestions for improvements to the external tool installation process #1011
Comments
|
Yes I think these are good ideas but right now they are not highest priority for us. I'll label this and we will evaluate time frames on if/when we would upgrade to latest LTS. I would be interested to see more feedback on 32 bit platform support and how many customers need this feature. Since it requires more support from us and may be a smaller subset of use cases, this feels like something we would be less likely to support. |
|
For example, in this case actions/checkout#334, it becomes a problem. Also the error message is very unfriendly. |
|
issues/334 Seems to makes using a "container" in the workflow virtually useless since you can't actually run any of the GitHub "actions" in it. |
|
I can also connect representatives of the Node.js team with you as needed and ask them to release dist files for the 32 bits platform. In any case, what we need now is a response from you all. |
e9f79ac (ci: upgrade to using actions/{up,down}load-artifacts v2, 2021-06-23) changed all calls to that action from v1 to v2, but there is still an open bug[1] that affects all nodejs actions and prevents its use in 32-bit linux (as used by the Linux32 container) move all dockerized jobs to use v1 that was built in C# and therefore doesn't have this problem, which will otherwise manifest with confusing messages like: /usr/bin/docker exec 0285adacc4536b7cd962079c46f85fa05a71e66d7905b5e4b9b1a0e8b305722a sh -c "cat /etc/*release | grep ^ID" OCI runtime exec failed: exec failed: container_linux.go:380: starting container process caused: no such file or directory: unknown [1] actions/runner#1011 Signed-off-by: Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón <carenas@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
e9f79ac (ci: upgrade to using actions/{up,down}load-artifacts v2, 2021-06-23) changed all calls to that action from v1 to v2, but there is still an open bug[1] that affects all nodejs actions and prevents its use in 32-bit linux (as used by the Linux32 container) move all dockerized jobs to use v1 that was built in C# and therefore doesn't have this problem, which will otherwise manifest with confusing messages like: /usr/bin/docker exec 0285adacc4536b7cd962079c46f85fa05a71e66d7905b5e4b9b1a0e8b305722a sh -c "cat /etc/*release | grep ^ID" OCI runtime exec failed: exec failed: container_linux.go:380: starting container process caused: no such file or directory: unknown [1] actions/runner#1011 Signed-off-by: Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón <carenas@gmail.com> Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
nikola-jokic
added
enhancement
I also stumbled across this after trying to run some actions on 32-Bit containers which still fail with an error message that's super misleading. So for me it would be great if Node.js would release dist files for 32 bit (and if this is then picked up here so it can be used in actions). |
|
The Node team's unofficial build currently has a build for 32-bit systems. I'm going to open a PR to correct the script to use it, do you have any objections? |
For now, we do that in file https://github.com/actions/runner/blob/main/src/Misc/externals.sh, but the URLs used for installation are inconsistently.
Nevertheless, using the official distfiles from the Node.js team is not ideal because there is no one for 32-bit.
It's not a bad idea to create a repository for building packages for the runner and build things like Node.js there, what do you think?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: