Support linux-arm64
ericjesusxc opened this issue · comments
Description
Trying to run migration from a bastion host on AWS using t4g family.
I'd like to second this issue, as I'm trying to run the GEI command line tools in a Linux container on my M1 machine.
FYI the reason we haven't historically added support for additional architectures is because we don't have access to machines to test it easily. Adding the additional compile targets is relatively easy, but we wouldn't have a way to easily know if we broke it with future changes. That's why our existing list of supported architectures pretty closely matches what is available for github hosted actions runners.
Not to say we couldn't change our minds there (I'm no longer on the eng team for this product), but that's a bit of historical context for why we haven't done this in the past.
Hi Dylan,
I ended up changing the bastion host to a t3 family (x86_64 architecture). And the migration is running fine.
Thanks for the work of all involved and the historical context.
Regards.
Hey @dylan-smith!
I'm planning to move forward with adding a linux-arm64 build anyways, since that's what's on my developers' machines.
Judging by @timrogers' issue (#796) and associated PR (#797) for windows-386 builds, I'll take a crack at opening a new PR that would add linux-arm64 builds.
From a testing standpoint, I figure it should be possible to instrument these using the ARM GitHub-hosted runners that went GA in October of last year. But even without these tests, per Tim's comment in the PR:
At this time, we don't have a way to test that these binaries work as part of our CI/CD process. Nevertheless, we think it's better to distribute a binary that should work than to offer nothing to users who want x86 support! If people run into any problems, they can create an issue and we will, of course, look into it.
I agree- an untested binary is better than no binary at all :)
I'll link to the PR in this thread once it's ready. Appreciate y'all for being such rockstars!