-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 226
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
It doesn't build on arm64 architecture due to Node.js Fibers package #48
Comments
While trying to build Rocket.chat for ARM64 we found the Fibers package missing. There is a prebuilt Fibers package for x64, but it has to be built from source on arm64. However, the build fails with -slim node image from which some tools like python are missing. Therefore we request the Rocket.chat project switch to using the non slim version of node image. The issue was reported earlier here : RocketChat#48
While trying to build Rocket.chat for ARM64 we found the Fibers package missing. There is a pre-built Fibers package for x64, but it has to be built from source on arm64. However, the build fails with -slim node image from which some tools like python are missing. Therefore we request the Rocket.chat project switch to using the non slim version of node image. The issue was reported earlier here : RocketChat#48
I'm not the image maintainer here, but IMO it'd be better to figure out what packages are necessary and install just those -- the difference between $ docker images 'node:8.11*'
REPOSITORY TAG IMAGE ID CREATED SIZE
node 8.11-slim 1d5555ef5229 3 weeks ago 182MB
node 8.11 ed145ef978c4 3 weeks ago 673MB I imagine the necessary build dependencies could probably even be added and subsequently removed in the same |
Hi,
I'm trying to do an arm64 native build of rocket.chat docker image. The problem I'm facing is that there is a prebuilt Fibers package for x64, but it has to be built from source on arm64. However, the build fails with -slim node image from which some tools like python are missing.
It can be successfully built with changing base image from node:8.9-slim to node:8.9 in Dockerfile.
But is it the correct fix? Thanks.
Shawn
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: