Hello,
It has been 13 days and not a single person has commented on the ppc64le
or arm64v8 Docker containers or binary packages.
I am starting to think no one actually cares about these builds, and
that ARM / IBM only pushed for these builds to be available for
publicity reasons, not because they have actual use cases in these spaces.
Prove me wrong. Post your test results here:
https://github.com/apache/couchdb-docker/pull/157
This is gating addition of these platforms to the top-level "couchdb"
Docker image.
-Joan
On 2019-10-11 1:08 p.m., Joan Touzet wrote:
Hello everyone,
A few changes have been quietly pushed to the binary package and Docker
repositories over the past week:
* CentOS 8 packages are now available in the usual place.
* Debian stretch packages for arm64v8 and ppc64le are also in the
usual place (and were required to build the Docker containers).
* The apache/couchdb:2.3.1 Docker image now has arm64v8 and ppc64le
variants.
The Docker images need testing on *real* hardware, and preferably
with *real* workloads. If you are in a position to do that, please leave
your test results here:
https://github.com/apache/couchdb-docker/pull/157
Getting positive confirmation is necessary to prepare the PR against
downstream to push these changes into the top-level "couchdb" image.
I want to quote something from the PR here because I feel very strongly
about it:
*************
Note: "Support" is defined by us running those machines in our CI
infrastructure regularly. This is true today for arm64v8 (aka aarch64)
and is about to be true for ppc64le. I feel very strongly that it is
irresponsible to add another architecture to this image, or to the
downstream Docker top-level couchdb image, without regular CI occurring.
You can revisit that decision after I eventually leave the CouchDB
project, but know that it'll be with my disappointment. ;)
*************
-Joan "remember, I'm a volunteer" Touzet
