8000 Switch to using the provided binaries instead of building everything from source · Issue #84 · djmaze/resticker · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Skip to content

Switch to using the provided binaries instead of building everything from source #84

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
Closed
djmaze opened this issue Mar 24, 2021 · 7 comments
Closed

Switch to using the provided binaries instead of building everything from source #84

djmaze opened this issue Mar 24, 2021 · 7 comments
Labels
enhancement help wanted
Milestone
1.5.0

Comments

@djmaze
Copy link
Owner
djmaze commented Mar 24, 2021

Restic as well as Rclone provide binaries for all supported platforms.
@djmaze djmaze added this to the 1.5.0 milestone Mar 24, 2021
@djmaze djmaze mentioned this issue Mar 24, 2021
Merged
@smainz
Copy link
Contributor
smainz commented Apr 6, 2021 •
edited
Loading

I might be able to help with this one.

What I would do:

  • Assume OS is Linux
  • get the machine architecture via uname -m or use a build argument ARCH
  • download the executable matching Linux and the detected architecture from github.
  • put the executables into /usr/local/bin

You lose the verification of the sha checksums for the executables. Checksums are published next to each build on github, but if you fake the DNS entry for https://github.com while building these checksums are useless.

@djmaze
Copy link
Owner Author
djmaze commented Apr 7, 2021

@smainz I don't quite get your argument concerning the checksums. My approach would be to hardcode the checksums for the latest version in the Dockerfile (as variables) so you can verify the downloaded binaries using those values. I think that would be worthwhile, in order to be sure the image – wherever and whenever it is built – contains the same correct binaries you initially intended to use.

@djmaze
Copy link
Owner Author
djmaze commented Apr 7, 2021

implemented in #86

@djmaze djmaze mentioned this issue Apr 7, 2021
Merged
@smainz
Copy link
Contributor
smainz commented Apr 7, 2021

I see your point. This means, we have to provide the checksms for each architecture in the Dockerfile, as these are different for the different executables.

@djmaze
Copy link
Owner Author
djmaze commented Apr 7, 2021

Yes, but I think it would be worth doing that (for the 3 architectures we support).

@smainz
Copy link
Contributor
smainz commented Apr 8, 2021

I will add that later today.

@djmaze
Copy link
Owner Author
djmaze commented Apr 25, 2021

Fixed in #86

@djmaze djmaze closed this as completed Apr 25, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
enhancement help wanted
Projects
None yet
Milestone
1.5.0
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@djmaze @smainz
0