Back to Codeberg

build: aarch64 support #403

forgejo-contrib-forgejo-cli-pulls-403.md

latest11.8 KB
Original Source

forgejo-contrib/forgejo-cli

Watch20

Star402

Fork

You've already forked forgejo-cli

51

CodeIssues 44Pull requests 8Releases 11Packages 2WikiActivity

build: aarch64 support #403

Merged

Cyborusmerged 2 commits from cyborus/aarch64 into main 2026-04-10 14:58:11 +02:00AGit

Conversation 1Commits 2Files changed 2 +19 -6

Cyborus commented 2026-04-09 18:37:02 +02:00

Member

Copy link

Changes Made

Closes #374

  • Adds target_arch to the build archives uploaded to the release page. This lets cargo-binstall select the correct version for your arch.
  • Builds an aarch64 version when publishing a new version.

Code of Conduct

  • I agree to act in accordance with the CoC & AI Agreement.
  • This contribution was not generated by an LLM, even in part.

Changes Made Closes #374 - Adds target_arch to the build archives uploaded to the release page. This lets cargo-binstall select the correct version for your arch. - Builds an aarch64 version when publishing a new version. ### Code of Conduct - [x] I agree to act in accordance with the CoC & AI Agreement. - [x] This contribution was not generated by an LLM, even in part.

❤️ 1

Cyborus added 2 commits 2026-04-09 18:37:03 +02:00

build: include target_arch in artifact names 71bda63a18

build(publish): add aarch64-linux build

All checks were successful

ci/woodpecker/pr/check Pipeline was successful

Details

4132bf9cc5

LordMZTE reviewed 2026-04-09 21:56:17 +02:00

.woodpecker/publish.yml

Show resolved Hide resolved

| | | | @ -2,3 +2,3 @@ | | | | | | - event: tag | | | | | | steps: | | | | | | compile-linux: | | | | | | compile-linux-x86_64: |

LordMZTE commented 2026-04-09 21:56:17 +02:00

Collaborator

Copy link

If this use-case fits the model (which at a glance, it seems to), we could consider converting this CI pipeline to a matrix workflow instead to reduce boilerplate and make this easier to expand to further architectures (and include windows-aarch64). If we have aarch64 CI runners available, it may also be worth using a similar approach for testing on multiple targets instead of just cross-compiling.

If this use-case fits the model (which at a glance, it seems to), we could consider converting this CI pipeline to a matrix workflow instead to reduce boilerplate and make this easier to expand to further architectures (and include windows-aarch64). If we have aarch64 CI runners available, it may also be worth using a similar approach for testing on multiple targets instead of just cross-compiling.

Cyborus commented 2026-04-09 22:58:57 +02:00

Author

Member

Copy link

If this use-case fits the model (which at a glance, it seems to), we could consider converting this CI pipeline to a matrix workflow instead to reduce boilerplate and make this easier to expand to further architectures (and include windows-aarch64).

I had thought of that too, but I wasn't sure how to get that to work with building the OCI image (it doesn't rebuild the whole project, rather copies in the x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu build from the previous step into the image), as well as how to set the [...]_LINKER env var for aarch64.

If we have aarch64 CI runners available, it may also be worth using a similar approach for testing on multiple targets instead of just cross-compiling.

Codeberg currently only provides amd64 runners, and I don't have an aarch64 machine available to host my own. Should either of those change, though, that would be a good idea.

> If this use-case fits the model (which at a glance, it seems to), we could consider converting this CI pipeline to a matrix workflow instead to reduce boilerplate and make this easier to expand to further architectures (and include windows-aarch64). I had thought of that too, but I wasn't sure how to get that to work with building the OCI image (it doesn't rebuild the whole project, rather copies in the x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu build from the previous step into the image), as well as how to set the [...]_LINKER env var for aarch64. > If we have aarch64 CI runners available, it may also be worth using a similar approach for testing on multiple targets instead of just cross-compiling. Codeberg currently only provides amd64 runners, and I don't have an aarch64 machine available to host my own. Should either of those change, though, that would be a good idea.

👍 1

LordMZTE marked this conversation as resolved

Cyborus merged commit ebacef82ec into main 2026-04-10 14:58:11 +02:00

Cyborus referenced this pull request from a commit 2026-04-10 14:58:12 +02:00 Merge pull request 'build: aarch64 support' (#403) from cyborus/aarch64 into main

Cyborus added this to the v0.5.0 milestone 2026-04-16 20:24:37 +02:00

Sign in to join this conversation.

Reviewers

No reviewers

Labels

Clear labels[ Kind/Breaking Breaking change that won't be backward compatible

](#)[ Kind/Bug Something is not working

](#)[ Kind/Design Discussion about UI/UX design

](#)[ Kind/Documentation Documentation changes

](#)[ Kind/Enhancement Improve existing functionality

](#)[ Kind/Feature New functionality

](#)[ Kind/Security This is security issue

](#)[ Kind/Testing Issue or pull request related to testing

](#)[ Kind/Upstream This is an issue with upstream software (Forgejo) that is probably not our fault

](#)

[ Priority

Critical The priority is critical

](#)[ Priority

High The priority is high

](#)[ Priority

Low The priority is low

](#)[ Priority

Medium The priority is medium

](#)

[ Reviewed

Confirmed Issue has been confirmed

](#)[ Reviewed

Duplicate This issue or pull request already exists

](#)[ Reviewed

Invalid Invalid issue

](#)[ Reviewed

Won't Fix This issue won't be fixed

](#)

[ Status

Abandoned Somebody has started to work on this but abandoned work

](#)[ Status

Blocked Something is blocking this issue or pull request

](#)[ Status

Need More Info Feedback is required to reproduce issue or to continue work

](#)

[ Suspicious

](#)

No labels Kind/Breaking Kind/Bug Kind/Design Kind/Documentation Kind/Enhancement Kind/Feature Kind/Security Kind/Testing Kind/Upstream [ Priority

Critical ](/forgejo-contrib/forgejo-cli/pulls?labels=173012) [ Priority

High ](/forgejo-contrib/forgejo-cli/pulls?labels=173013) [ Priority

Low ](/forgejo-contrib/forgejo-cli/pulls?labels=173015) [ Priority

Medium ](/forgejo-contrib/forgejo-cli/pulls?labels=173014) [ Reviewed

Confirmed ](/forgejo-contrib/forgejo-cli/pulls?labels=173007) [ Reviewed

Duplicate ](/forgejo-contrib/forgejo-cli/pulls?labels=173005) [ Reviewed

Invalid ](/forgejo-contrib/forgejo-cli/pulls?labels=173006) [ Reviewed

Won't Fix ](/forgejo-contrib/forgejo-cli/pulls?labels=173008) [ Status

Abandoned ](/forgejo-contrib/forgejo-cli/pulls?labels=173011) [ Status

Blocked ](/forgejo-contrib/forgejo-cli/pulls?labels=173010) [ Status

Need More Info ](/forgejo-contrib/forgejo-cli/pulls?labels=173009) Suspicious

Milestone

Clear milestone

No items

No milestone v0.5.0

Projects

Clear projects

No items

No project

Assignees

Clear assignees

No assignees

2 participants

Notifications Subscribe

Due date

The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference

forgejo-contrib/forgejo-cli!403

WritePreview

Loading…

Add table

| Rows | | | Columns | |

CancelOK

Add a link

Url Description Hint: With a URL in your clipboard, you can paste directly into the editor to create a link.

CancelOK

CancelSave

Reference in a new issue

Repository

forgejo-contrib/forgejo-cli

Title

Body

Create issue

No description provided.

Delete branch "cyborus/aarch64"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?

No Yes