Bug: ghcr images are lacking arm64

[samip5]

Describe the bug

The images provided in ghcr.io/foxcpp/maddy seem to lack arm64.

Steps to reproduce

1. Try to pull Maddy on arm64 host from ghcr.io.
2. See it fail due to manifest not including anything other than amd64

Log files

docker pull ghcr.io/foxcpp/maddy:0.8.1
0.8.1: Pulling from foxcpp/maddy
no matching manifest for linux/arm64/v8 in the manifest list entries

[cuihaoleo]

Same for docker.io images.

[mcsrobert]

This was supposed to be fixed with 0.8.2 (see: #758 (comment)). This release finally dropped, but still does not have an aarch64 package.

[maitredede]

Hi,

I have a local fork of maddy, and to ensure multi-arch build, I rely on docker buildx plugin with command bake.

I don't have automated builds, but the final image is built locally on my computer (arm part is done slowly using qemu), but it works. I only build amd64 and arm64, but other archs are easy to add.

[mcsrobert]

@maitredede This is not about getting it to run or not (I have mcsrobert/homelab#168). This is about the images not existing when it seems they should.

There's been effort to create multi-arch images, they just don't seem to be uploaded for some reason. See:

https://github.com/foxcpp/maddy/blob/master/.github/workflows/release.yml

[mcsrobert]

@foxcpp Would you be able to confirm whether v0.8.2 should have had an ARM image built? Based on your #758 (comment) I assumed so.

[maitredede]

Hi @mcsrobert. Like you, I have assumed that arm images would be available with current version, but are not.

I only proposed an other way to provide them, that seams easier for me. I have also my own fork with updated dependencies, non-root, and deployed with readonly root filesystem, for increased security. You can have a look at https://github.com/maitredede/maddy/tree/non-root-bake i your are interested. :)

[leolivier]

Hi everyone, one year later, I still have the same issue with 0.9.4. Is there something new arriving? I can also build my own version but I'd rather not to :)

[leolivier]

Looking at release.yaml, I just noticed that the arm paltform has been commented:
platforms: linux/amd64 #,linux/arm64 Temporary disabled due to SIGSEGV in gcc.

Is this the actual reason why there is no arm version currently?
And is there somewhere an issue linked to this SIGSEGV ? I didn't find it

[leolivier]

Story continued: I just added again the linux/arm64 platform and the small adjustement to build from my fork (image name and attestation) and delivered a version v0.0.1 and it looks like it's working:

• The arm version is properly embedded in the delivered image
• I still have config issues but it starts well on my Raspberry Pi

Shouldn't you just retry with removing this comment ? (I can do a PR for that if needed)

[foxcpp]

Sure, let's uncomment it, will try building arm64+x86_64 combined image for the next release.

[foxcpp]

e42741c