-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4k
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
Release bazel installer for arm64 #11775
Comments
Any progress on this? Thanks! |
Hi Team, |
Hello, I'd like to better understand your use-case. Bazel is a single binary that can just be executed, so an installer or Debian package isn't really necessary to install it - could you please explain why you'd prefer these instead of just downloading and running the binary? :) |
I think the intent here is if there's a use case/need for this install script on x86, it should also be available for arm64. Being able to build the binary for your distro also means you're not dependent on anything specific to the release binary (e.g. shared libraries). |
@mattsplats I agree that if we provide it for one architecture, we should provide it for all applicable architectures. 👍 In order to understand whether it's a good use of our resources, I would like to understand the general usefulness of the installer script and Debian packages that we provide (also for x86_64). The installer script and Debian package do nothing special - they simply wrap the same binary that you can download anyway and put it in some place, so I wonder if we could just stop providing these artifacts and ask people to download and use the binary directly. I'm not sure I understand how this is related to being able to build the binary for your own distro. This is supported and will of course stay that way (we have an integration test that ensures you can bootstrap Bazel on each platform we test on via the |
Apologies, I assumed the install script compiled from source. Removing the script and Debian package makes sense, as otherwise you'll need to maintain them for multiple arches. The only objection I've heard is that a package install could automatically update Bazel with your other dependencies (e.g. |
bazel team isn't publishing any new installer scripts: bazelbuild/bazel#11775
bazel team isn't publishing any new installer scripts: bazelbuild/bazel#11775
bazel team isn't publishing any new installer scripts: bazelbuild/bazel#11775
bazel team isn't publishing any new installer scripts: bazelbuild/bazel#11775
bazel team isn't publishing any new installer scripts: bazelbuild/bazel#11775
bazel team isn't publishing any new installer scripts: bazelbuild/bazel#11775
bazel team isn't publishing any new installer scripts: bazelbuild/bazel#11775
bazel team isn't publishing any new installer scripts: bazelbuild/bazel#11775
bazel team isn't publishing any new installer scripts: bazelbuild/bazel#11775
bazel team isn't publishing any new installer scripts: bazelbuild/bazel#11775
The Debian (Ubuntu) package is more that just the raw The Debian package also includes the bash and zsh completion files [1,2], as well as the I think the installing the shell completion files system-wide is an important part of the user experience that's missing from the single-binary release mechanism ( The versioning script at [3] is more of a mixed bag. It would be fair to argue that the On the question of what would be the most worthwhile for the Bazel Team to invest in... I would actually advocate for doubling down on bazelisk, and dialing back the others:
By simplifying the install process to just be "install bazelisk" and then letting [1] bazel/scripts/zsh_completion/_bazel Line 1 in f71bbcf
[2] Line 7 in f71bbcf
[3] bazel/scripts/packages/bazel.sh Lines 19 to 21 in f71bbcf
[4] As it stands, the https://bazel.build/install/ubuntu page says "Use bazelisk" which links to https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazelisk/blob/master/README.md which has almost no instructions for Ubuntu users, just "download something from the releases page and add it to your path". Besides just being confusing, that loses out on the customary Ubuntu practice of automatic (security) upgrades via an Apt site. |
See also bazelbuild/bazelisk#563. I'm hoping to push forward on providing |
Hi Team,
Thank you for releasing bazel binaries for arm64 in the 3.4.0 release. Now we have bazel-3.4.1-installer-linux-x86_64.sh available for x86_64. Is it expected to have bazel-3.4.X-installer-linux-arm64.sh for arm64 in future ?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: