-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 27
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
Fix GH CI workflow #1810
Fix GH CI workflow #1810
Conversation
.github/workflows/build-docker.yml
Outdated
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ | |||
name: Build Docker |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd suggest to put the release-related build-xxx
files into a separate release
subfolder.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
like the idea but got this error from gh:
invalid value workflow reference: workflows must be defined at the top level of the .github/workflows/ directory
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
like the idea but got this error from gh
Then I'd suggest to rename the files at least, giving them the "release-" prefix, so that it's clear what those jobs are for.
<!-- Debugging (remove for production) --> | ||
<key>com.apple.security.get-task-allow</key> | ||
<false/> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should it be removed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
its set to false so its OK. when true it permits debugger
@@ -0,0 +1,231 @@ | |||
#!/bin/bash | |||
|
|||
set -e |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd also specify set -o nounset
. Though it'll require refactoring the script a bit.
build-tools/osx/sign_and_notarize.sh
Outdated
|
||
# Main execution | ||
main() { | ||
if [ $# -eq 0 ]; then |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
-ne 2
?
Cargo.toml
Outdated
installers = [] | ||
# Target platforms to build apps for (Rust target-triple syntax) | ||
targets = ["aarch64-apple-darwin", "x86_64-apple-darwin", "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu", "x86_64-pc-windows-msvc"] | ||
|
||
# Publish jobs to run in CI | ||
pr-run-mode = "plan" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks like this line was also related to dist and should be removed
.github/workflows/build-linux.yml
Outdated
for binary in "${BINARIES[@]}"; do | ||
cp target/${{ matrix.arch }}-unknown-linux-gnu/release/$binary Mintlayer_Node_linux_${{ steps.get_version.outputs.VERSION }}_${{ matrix.arch }}/ | ||
done | ||
zip -r Mintlayer_Node_linux_${{ steps.get_version.outputs.VERSION }}_${{ matrix.arch }}.zip Mintlayer_Node_linux_${{ steps.get_version.outputs.VERSION }}_${{ matrix.arch }} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
btw why zip? Previously we used tar.xz and it looks more linux-friendly
.github/workflows/build-linux.yml
Outdated
cat << EOF > debian-gui/usr/share/applications/mintlayer-node-gui.desktop | ||
[Desktop Entry] | ||
Name=Mintlayer Node GUI | ||
Exec=/usr/bin/node-gui |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Btw,
-
I wonder whether we should rename the binary before installing it into the system. E.g. to
mintlayer-node-gui
. IMOnode-gui
sounds too generic and confusing without a context. -
Also, why don't we provide a standalone version of
node-gui
anymore (i.e. just an executable in an archive) in addition to the deb/rpm? Some people (myself including) would prefer a standalone app.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
IMO node-gui sounds too generic and confusing without a context.
Same for the deb/rpm that install command-line apps.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree with you; binaries should have a prefix to avoid conflicts when installed system-wide. However, implementing this change would break any existing scripts. It's a delicate matter, and I'm not sure we can make this change easily now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree with you; binaries should have a prefix to avoid conflicts when installed system-wide. However, implementing this change would break any existing scripts. It's a delicate matter, and I'm not sure we can make this change easily now.
I wonder whether we should publish the deb/rpm at all in such a case. At least for the command-line tools. Because not only those binaries have generic names, their --help
output doesn't even mention they are related to Mintlayer. So users may not have any idea what has just been installed into their system.
.github/workflows/build-linux.yml
Outdated
cp target/${{ matrix.arch }}-unknown-linux-gnu/release/$binary Mintlayer_Node_linux_${{ steps.get_version.outputs.VERSION }}_${{ matrix.arch }}/ | ||
done |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The zip archive and packages have inconsistent naming for arm64 - the packages have the suffix "arm64" and the archive "aarch64". Not a big deal, but can be confusing for users.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The zip archive and packages have inconsistent naming for arm64 - the packages have the suffix "arm64" and the archive "aarch64". Not a big deal, but can be confusing for users.
Same thing for x86_64 actually (the suffixes are x86_64 and amd64)
.github/workflows/release.yml
Outdated
# | ||
# Note that the Github Release will be created with a generated | ||
# title/body based on your changelogs. | ||
name: Build, Sign, and Release |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is now builds and signs artefacts for every PR. It should be limited to release branches I guess
.github/workflows/build-linux.yml
Outdated
|
||
jobs: | ||
build: | ||
runs-on: ubuntu-latest |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think we should use the latest image here, because it effectively determines the minimum version of glibc required by the binaries. E.g. I've checked your test binaries - according to objdump
, node-daemon
needs at least one symbol from glibc v2.34, while node-gui
needs a symbol from v2.35.
Glibc v2.35 is the one used by Ubuntu 22.04, which is what "ubuntu-latest" currently means on GitHub Actions. But they'll update to 24.04 eventually and our next release may suddenly require even a newer version of a Linux distro.
For comparison, Debian 11 (which, as I've googled, will be supported until 08.2026), has glibc v2.31, so the binaries won't work there.
And RHEL 8 (supported until 2029) has glibc v2.28.
So at the very least I'd suggest to specify a concrete Linux distro here.
GitHub actions should still support ubuntu-20.04 (which uses glibc v2.31), we can use this one, so that the binaries work on Debian 11 at least.
An alternative solution might be to use one of the "manylinux" docker images, which are used to compile Python extensions. I've found this article where the author has successfully used one of the manylinux images with GitHub actions.
Or we may want to switch to using musl-libc targets, so that the binaries don't depend on glibc at all. Though those targets are still considered "Tier 2" so I'm not sure if it's a good idea (in any case, it's not a good idea to switch to musl in the current release).
P.S. We could also provide musl-based binaries in addition to glibc-based ones, so that people on older systems could have an alternative.
Fix Github CI workflow
This pull request implements comprehensive CI workflows for building and packaging releases across multiple platforms. The enhancements include:
Release Types
For each platform, we now produce two distinct release packages:
Platform-Specific Builds
macOS
.dmg
file for easy installation..zip
archive.Linux
Three package formats are now available:
.zip
: For universal compatibility..deb
: For Debian-based distributions (Ubuntu, Debian, etc.)..rpm
: For Red Hat-based distributions (Fedora, CentOS, etc.).Windows
.zip
file..exe
)..zip
archive.Docker
Additional Notes