Skip to content

More docker build excitement #46

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

Open
wants to merge 20 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

JStrader-Mirion
Copy link
Contributor

  • The scratch/Alpine combo really brings that image size down 140MB vs 300MB or so.
  • I have included the -DZLIB_INCLUDE_DIR="_deps/zlib-build" compile flags per ZLib issue #45.
  • The docker containers now have two COPY commands commented out that may be uncommented to use local copies of /src and /build.
  • I have adjusted the build_Container.yaml, so now it only fires manually and will begin attempting to build arm64 versions of the project. I successfully tested a single build that pushed to the ghcr container repo. Note, I haven't been able to test the matrix build, as I am presently queued. If the arm builds fail, just edit the matrix:, arch: line in the yaml file.
  • It may be run directly from my repo (for the time being): docker run --rm -it -v pwd:/data -p 8078:8078 ghcr.io/jstrader-mirion/interspec:release
  • Various other small changes. Feel free to cherry-pick.

@wcjohns
Copy link
Collaborator

wcjohns commented Apr 25, 2025

This is very cool - thanks for doing all this!

I'm actually a little disappointed the build is still 140 MB. From just a quick check the resources/data should be ~55 MB, and the exe was 30 MB on my build for ARM64, so I might poke around at things when I get back from a long weekend.

@JStrader-Mirion
Copy link
Contributor Author

In piecing this together, I have managed to break the alpine build (that commit message is misleading, as I just built the debian version twice without thinking). Hold off on actioning this PR until I rectify this. You managed to build for arm64 without issue? I believe there may be interest in running this on our MCA's, but they are only armhf. I'll have to play around with it.

@wcjohns
Copy link
Collaborator

wcjohns commented Apr 30, 2025

Nice - thanks for all this!

Yes, it worked fine on arm64; I don't have any concerns about armhf because the Android build still compiles for, and works well, on the 32bit ARM cpus.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants