Please provide ARMv8 images #13
Comments
|
A workaround is to add docker run --platform=linux/amd64 ... kjarosh/latex:2024.3 ...That needs Rosetta 2 to be installed and enabled in Docker though. |
|
You're right that both TeXLive and Alpine provide aarch64 versions, but the problem is that TeXLive does not provide aarch64 version with musl (which Alpine uses). The link to tug.org you posted (https://tug.org/texlive/doc.html#platforms) lists x86_64 as the only architecture with musl support. So the options are currently to either:
To be honest building TeXLive from sources sounds interesting, but is a major feature to implement. |
|
I'm thinking the easiest and cleanest way of providing texlive on Alpine aarch64 would be writing a custom APKBUILD for texlive and building it. There's an existing APKBUILD for texlive (https://gitlab.alpinelinux.org/alpine/aports/-/tree/master/community/texlive) but I cannot use it in any way as it's not licensed. |
|
This issue precludes using your image as a devcontainer image. It supports image runArgs but there is no way to say "only do this on ARM64". |
This is the license o 8000 f the contents of the package, not of the package metadata itself (and build instructions). See https://wiki.alpinelinux.org/wiki/Creating_an_Alpine_package#license The APKBUILD (and possibly related files from the directory) are lacking license information, which means that by default I do not have any right to use them. Please let me know if you find any licensing information, I would happily use that to provide the image for AArch64. But as of now I would have to come up with my own build file for alpine, which is a bit too time consuming (for now at least). |
@maribu You are listed as the maintainer, maybe you could resolve the licensing issue? This project currently uses the MIT license. |
|
I think licensing the APKBUILDs in Alpine is something to better discuss with the Alpine maintainers. Just adding a license info to a single APKBUILD without coordination with the rest of the distro is something that I don't think is a good idea. That said, I would support any coordinated change to add an explicit free license and would agree that my contributes are licensed under whatever free License Alpine recommends. For now: Feel free to use the parts of the APKBUILD that I authored for a new APKBUILD under 0BSD (that is what Arch Linux used for PKGBUILDs; I think that one has a good chance to be championed for Alpine as well). I hope that helps with the immediate problem. |
|
For the record: There is an open issue to license the aports themselfs. https://gitlab.alpinelinux.org/alpine/aports/-/issues/9074 |
|
Thank you @sertonix for mentioning the issue. I read it when I first researched the possibility of using aports, but couldn't find it last week. Also thank you for your contribution and involvement with this issue in general. I think it's important for aports to license their work properly. Thank you @maribu for your permission but I can see that, unfortunately, the texlive APKBUILD had multiple contributors. Realistically, we would need permission from each single contributor. Patches cannot really be licensed without regard for the license of the original work, as they are considered derivative work. Regarding the 0BSD license that Alpine plans to add without a consent (or with the "consent" defined as "the lack of consent")---it doesn't change anything. We still need consent from all authors. I'm not sure if Alpine plans to disclose which authors consented or not; without it, their LICENSE file doesn't mean anything. |
Apple uses ARM in Macs since 2020.
https://tug.org/texlive/doc.html#platforms
https://github.com/docker-library/official-images#architectures-other-than-amd64
https://hub.docker.com/_/alpine
https://docs.docker.com/build/building/multi-platform/
https://docs.docker.com/reference/cli/docker/buildx/build/#platform
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: