Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Support for armv7-unknown-linux-musleabihf #11

Closed
jimmycuadra opened this issue Apr 14, 2017 · 5 comments
Closed

Support for armv7-unknown-linux-musleabihf #11

jimmycuadra opened this issue Apr 14, 2017 · 5 comments

Comments

@jimmycuadra
Copy link

Any interest in supporting more architectures than x86_64-unknown-linux-musl? I'm working on a project where I want to run a Rust program via Docker on a Raspberry Pi 3, and was looking into ways of doing that. I've been using this project for several images for a while now—it's fantastic. I figured before I fork it and badly maintain an ARM equivalent, I'd ask whether it was worth trying to support in this project proper. Thanks for your time and the wonderful project!
@clux
Copy link
Owner

clux commented Apr 14, 2017

Hey there, thanks again for the support.

Honestly though, I'm not convinced this project is actually necessary anymore.
What's your opinion of cross? It provides images like this one, but does it with a general tool that allows tons of architectures.

I can see the armv7-unknown-linux-musleabihf target supported there, though apparently without openssl, but maybe it's a better place to start.

I'm kind of considering just redirecting people there and telling them to use cross build --target x86_64-unknown-linux-musl --release instead. It is a more general solution.

@jimmycuadra
Copy link
Author

Oh, yes, that seems quite appropriate. I remember seeing the announcement of cross a few months back, but didn't take a close look at it. I wonder why OpenSSL is listed as not applicable musl targets. I'll open an issue over there and reference this one. Thanks!

@jimmycuadra jimmycuadra mentioned this issue Apr 14, 2017
Closed
clux added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 15, 2017
@clux
mention cross as a better alternative - see #11
24f6f23 
cross uses rustup a lot more intelligently, and produces the images in a
a much smarter way. This results in smaller images, and easier to
configure cargo caches due to how the tool manages the docker parameters for you.

I'd recommend you start there rather than this image. I'll probably keep
building at least the stable images for a while though.
@corbinu
Copy link

corbinu commented Apr 17, 2017

Just a note this works for building from a Mac/Windows as long as docker is installed where as cross does not so I do think this project still has legs. :)

@clux
Copy link
Owner

clux commented Apr 17, 2017

Oh nice, yeah that makes sense. I noticed later on that cross mounts a bunch of cargo and rustup folders and relies on getting the toolchains updates outside the image. I haven't fully grokked how that actually works, but it's nice that you don't need to upgrade the images all the time. On the other hand, it's not great because you need to have rust set up outside of it to use it as you say.

I will keep posting updates to the images at least. Maybe it could actually be worth adding support for other images as well. Travis builds and dockerhub usage is free from my perspective at least 😏

@clux
Copy link
Owner

clux commented Oct 19, 2017

Going to close this for now. Hard enough maintaining this one :-)
Rather just focus on having this image work well for the major crates.

@clux clux closed this as completed Oct 19, 2017
@6543 6543 mentioned this issue Jun 24, 2023
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@jimmycuadra @clux @corbinu