Support for AARCH64

Martin Grigorov martin.grigorov at
Wed Mar 18 15:31:56 UTC 2020


On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 4:35 PM Martin Grigorov <martin.grigorov at>

> Hi Guillaume,
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 3:23 PM Guillaume Quintard <
> guillaume at> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Offering arm64 packages requires a few things:
>> - arm64-compatible code (all good in
>> - arm64-compatible package framework (all good in
>> - infrastructure to build the packages (uhoh, see below)
>> - infrastructure to store and deliver (
>> So, everything is in place, expect for the third point. At the moment,
>> there are two concurrent CI implementations:
>> - travis:
>> It's
>> the historical one, and currently only runs compilation+test for OSX
> Actually it tests Linux AMD64 and ARM64 too.
>> - circleci:
>> the
>> new kid on the block, that builds all the packages and distchecks for all
>> the packaged platforms
>> The issue is that cirecleci doesn't support arm64 containers (for now?),
>> so we would need to re-implement the packaging logic in Travis. It's not a
>> big problem, but it's currently not a priority on my side.
>> However, I am totally ready to provide help if someone wants to take that
>> up. The added benefit it that Travis would be able to handle everything and
>> we can retire the circleci experiment
> I will take a look in the coming days and ask you if I need help!

I've took a look at the current setup and here is what I've found as
problems and possible solutions:

1) Circle CI
1.1) problem - the 'machine' and 'Docker' executors run on x86_64, so there
is no way to build the packages in a "native" environment
1.2) possible solutions
1.2.1) use multiarch cross build
1.2.2) use 'machine' executor that registers QEMU via and then builds and
runs a custom Docker image that executes a shell script with the build steps
It will look something like
instead of uploading the Docker image as a last step it will run it.
The RPM and DEB build related code from current config.yml will be
extracted into shell scripts which will be copied in the custom Docker

>From these two possible ways I have better picture in my head how to do
1.2.2, but I don't mind going deep in 1.2.1 if this is what you'd prefer.

2) Travis CI
2.1) problems
2.1.1) generally Travis is slower than Circle!
Althought if we use CircleCI 'machine' executor it will be slower than the
current 'Docker' executor!
2.1.2) Travis supports only Ubuntu
Current setup at CircleCI uses CentOS 7.
I guess the build steps won't have problems on Ubuntu.

3) GitHub Actions
GH Actions does not support ARM64 but it supports self hosted ARM64 runners
3.1) The problem is that there is no way to make a self hosted runner
really private. I.e. if someone forks Varnish Cache any commit in the fork
will trigger builds on the arm64 node. There is no way to reserve the
runner only for commits against

Do you see other problems or maybe different ways ?
Do you have preferences which way to go ?


> Regards,
> Martin
>> --
>> Guillaume Quintard
>> _______________________________________________
>> varnish-dev mailing list
>> varnish-dev at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the varnish-dev mailing list