Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Support "fat-manifest" multi-arch container images #10119

Closed
anthr76 opened this issue Jan 24, 2022 · 4 comments
Closed

Support "fat-manifest" multi-arch container images #10119

anthr76 opened this issue Jan 24, 2022 · 4 comments
Assignees
Labels
Blocked Blocked by research or external factors CI Continuous integration related items

Comments

@anthr76
Copy link

anthr76 commented Jan 24, 2022

🚀 Feature Request

Images like gcr.io/prysmaticlabs/prysm/validator:stable should support arm64

Description

These images should be able to be ran on amd64 or arm64

Describe the solution you'd like

The build system should implment a fat-manifest

Describe alternatives you've considered

Building, and maintaing my own image. This is required for multi-arch clusters without tolerating to amd64 which increases power usage.

@prestonvanloon
Copy link
Member

Probably depends on bazelbuild/rules_docker#1599 or doing something else entirely.

@prestonvanloon
Copy link
Member

Seems like we can do a workaround like this: buchgr/bazel-remote#453

@anthr76
Copy link
Author

anthr76 commented Jan 26, 2022

That looks like a suitable workaround. Are maintainers okay with something like that?

@james-prysm james-prysm added Blocked Blocked by research or external factors CI Continuous integration related items labels Nov 28, 2022
@prestonvanloon
Copy link
Member

Fixed in #12428. We are planning to switch to these multi-arch images, starting in the next release.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Blocked Blocked by research or external factors CI Continuous integration related items
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants
@prestonvanloon @anthr76 @james-prysm and others