Erlang Linux Builds

[tsloughter]

Background

While working on binary package support in erlup I installed https://github.com/wojtekmach/otp_releases/releases/download/OTP-24.0-rc1/otp-24.0-rc1-linux-x86_64.tar.gz on my local machine, Fedora 33, and discovered it fails to run because of a ncurses dependency libtinfo. The version on Fedora 33 is 6 but the Erlang package (built on Ubuntu 16.04) requires 5.

Objective(s)

The objective is to have pre-built Erlang binary packages that work on recent Linux distros, as well as older ones up to some point, like LTS releases.

The simplest solution that may be good enough is to add the Ubuntu version to the package name and add builds for more recent Ubuntu versions. Then tools like erlup can have a manual mapping of Ubuntu version to library versions that it uses to determine the package to download.

[starbelly]

@tsloughter This is interesting as there has been discussion that I've caught here and there around doing away with bob (at least partially) in favor of GH actions. Are you thinking something like that? Or do you think this should be done in bob?

[wojtekmach]

Yes, as Hex team we indeed want to move away from Bob to GH actions as much as possible. We want to move the following things over:

• Elixir builds (https://github.com/hexpm/bob#elixir-builds)
• Elixir docs (https://github.com/hexpm/bob#elixir-docs)
• Erlang builds (https://github.com/hexpm/bob#erlang-builds)

Bob would still notably handle Docker builds (https://github.com/hexpm/bob#docker-images)

Ideally https://github.com/elixir-lang/elixir would have a workflow for Elixir builds & docs, and https://github.com/erlang/otp for Erlang builds (erlang/otp#2936)

cc @ericmj @supersimple

[wojtekmach]

@tsloughter you can browse builds for more recent Ubuntu releases here:

• https://repo.hex.pm/builds/otp/ubuntu-18.04/builds.txt

• https://repo.hex.pm/builds/otp/ubuntu-18.04/OTP-24.0-rc2.tar.gz

• https://repo.hex.pm/builds/otp/ubuntu-20.04/builds.txt

• https://repo.hex.pm/builds/otp/ubuntu-20.04/OTP-24.0-rc2.tar.gz

We have https://repo.hex.pm/builds/otp/alpine-3.10/builds.txt too.

[wojtekmach]

@tsloughter Since you mentioned https://github.com/wojtekmach/otp_releases, a friendly remainder that it, along with https://github.com/wojtekmach/beamup, is a proof-of-concept! I'm happy to do some maintenance in the meantime if it helps you but I'd rather focus on erlang/otp#2936 down the road if the OTP team decides to move forward with that.

[ericmj]

Yes, as Hex team we indeed want to move away from Bob to GH actions as much as possible. We want to move the following things over:

To clarify the goal isn't to move to GH actions specifically but rather to move management of builds away from Hex/Bob. I have some concerns with using GH actions because it doesn't give the control that is needed in my experience with Bob. As an example today we needed to rebuild all OTP versions 17-19 for Ubuntu 18.04 due to an issue with libssl versioning. This meant rebuilding ~100 versions which I don't can or should be done with actions. But this is of course something the people that end up managing this will have to explore and decide on.

[wojtekmach]

Yup, thanks for clarifying that.

Fwiw, I believe we could schedule ~100 action runs by triggering that many workflow_dispatch events (each with different arguments) but yeah, unclear if we’d run into any rate limiting and such.

[starbelly]

Yeah, I can see a situation where by you move to GH actions, then you run into resource problems, so you end up making self-hosted runners, and then you might as well kept on using bob :)

Edit:

To Hex team, can you clarify the desire for wanting to move away from Bob for at least some things?

[josevalim]

@starbelly the reason we want to move away is because sometimes the instructions for Erlang/Elixir change, so Bob needs to track a huge matrix of versions, and if that was within each repository (Erlang, Elixir, etc), life would be much easier. :)

[ferd]

I figure nothing here has changed? Unless we want to discuss this in the next meeting, we should change the tag on this or turn it into something else than an agenda item.

[tsloughter]

No changes but an important change to OTP was merged. I can't find the PR at the moment... But basically there is no need to run install after unpacking a pre-built OTP release, so it makes it easier to install. Something I've wanted for adding binary support to erlup.

[wojtekmach]

@tsloughter maybe this one erlang/otp#5427?

[tsloughter]

Yup, that's it

[michallepicki]

Ideally https://github.com/elixir-lang/elixir would have a workflow for Elixir builds & docs, and https://github.com/erlang/otp for Erlang builds (erlang/otp#2936)

@wojtekmach I see that the Erlang PR is closed, was there ever an official response from the Erlang/OTP team about them providing Linux builds? Right now it looks like it's not a priority for them (understandably because it's just additional work). Maybe even the foundation itself could take up this work in some ongoing project form for this group.

I'm asking because Ubuntu 22.04 is now out, I opened related issues in bob and setup-beam repositories.

[wojtekmach]

@michallepicki see this PR: erlang/otp#5723

[samwar]

It would be great if y'all could build some packages at least mirrored what erlang solutions provides (Ubuntu, Debian, RHEL). If there was a desire for more esoteric flavors of linux, then that support could eventually be added. It's getting tiresome to rely on a 3rd party to push our packages for install, especially when they don't build packages for every release (they don't do all patch releases nor RCs) in a timely manner. To start they could even live along with the other artifacts in the GitHub release.

[ferd]

There are ongoing discussions to get the Erlang Solutions packages handed off to the working group, but we essentially are looking for someone willing to take ownership (as in "tracking issues and knowing what is going on moving forwards" and not as in "willing to do all the maintenance work") for this to happen.

Unless there are more volunteers, there aren't necessarily enough hands to take that over.

[tsloughter]

@samwar you use the Erlang Solutions packages for development or deployment (or both)?

[samwar]

Just in development because it's easier to rebuild docker images. For production we use kerl on our build boxes and then bundle up our deployed artifact so we don't need to install Erlang on our production boxes.

[gilacost]

Have you guys checked packages2? I was working on a new version of builders for al ESL packages just before leaving ESL. There are some workflows triggered on a weekly basis. This could be addapted, simplified and help you move away from bob in terms of building elixir and erlang?

[lpil]

Hello folks! I remember there being an issue with some more recent discussion on the subject of Linux builds, but I'm unable to find them now. Does anyone know where this might have taken place? 😁