You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
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.
The Alpine/aarch64 builds are far less popular than the figure listed above but since nodejs/unofficial-builds#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. Single Executable Application segfaults on musl builds but works on official node:alpine on arm64 unofficial-builds#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.
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 #2462 (comment)
The Alpine/aarch64 builds are far less popular than the figure listed above but since nodejs/unofficial-builds#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: