fix: unbreak the build for platforms w/o docker support #1294

Merged

mfenniak merged 1 commit from alexrp/runner:netbsd-fix into main 2026-01-14 20:20:05 +00:00

Conversation 9 Commits 1 Files changed 2 +5 -1

alexrp commented 2026-01-14 18:38:44 +00:00

Contributor

Copy link

Such as NetBSD.

• bug fixes
  • PR: fix: unbreak the build for platforms w/o docker support

Such as NetBSD. <!--start release-notes-assistant--> <!--URL:https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner--> - bug fixes - [PR](https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/pulls/1294): <!--number 1294 --><!--line 0 --><!--description Zml4OiB1bmJyZWFrIHRoZSBidWlsZCBmb3IgcGxhdGZvcm1zIHcvbyBkb2NrZXIgc3VwcG9ydA==-->fix: unbreak the build for platforms w/o docker support<!--description--> <!--end release-notes-assistant-->

aahlenst commented 2026-01-14 18:40:41 +00:00

Member

Copy link

There's a forgejo-runner.x86_64-netbsd in the PR.

There's a `forgejo-runner.x86_64-netbsd` in the PR.

alexrp commented 2026-01-14 18:42:24 +00:00

Author

Contributor

Copy link

Oops. Would you mind if I changed the .gitignore entry to forgejo-runner*? We cross-compile the runner for many targets, which is why we use binary names like that.

Oops. Would you mind if I changed the `.gitignore` entry to `forgejo-runner*`? We cross-compile the runner for many targets, which is why we use binary names like that.

alexrp force-pushed netbsd-fix from 71e0fc340d to 26320bbce9 2026-01-14 18:43:38 +00:00 Compare

aahlenst commented 2026-01-14 18:45:22 +00:00

Member

Copy link

@alexrp wrote in #1294 (comment):

Oops. Would you mind if I changed the .gitignore entry to forgejo-runner*? We cross-compile the runner for many targets, which is why we use binary names like that.

Makes sense to me.

Asking, because I currently don't have the capacity to investigate that myself right now: Would cross compiling Forgejo Runner on Linux help to prevent such issues?

@alexrp wrote in https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/pulls/1294#issuecomment-73372: > Oops. Would you mind if I changed the `.gitignore` entry to `forgejo-runner*`? We cross-compile the runner for many targets, which is why we use binary names like that. Makes sense to me. Asking, because I currently don't have the capacity to investigate that myself right now: Would cross compiling Forgejo Runner on Linux help to prevent such issues?

alexrp force-pushed netbsd-fix from 26320bbce9 to 70249af0e5 2026-01-14 18:51:10 +00:00 Compare

alexrp commented 2026-01-14 18:51:35 +00:00

Author

Contributor

Copy link

@aahlenst wrote in #1294 (comment):

Asking, because I currently don't have the capacity to investigate that myself right now: Would cross compiling Forgejo Runner on Linux help to prevent such issues?

Probably; that's what I do for Zig. All of these are built from x86_64-linux: https://codeberg.org/ziglang/runner/releases/tag/v12.1.0-zsf

Specifically:

GOARCH=amd64 GOOS=freebsd go build -v -tags 'netgo osusergo' -ldflags '-X "code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/v12/internal/pkg/ver.version=v12.1.0-zsf"' -o forgejo-runner.x86_64-freebsd

GOARCH=arm64 GOOS=linux go build -v -tags 'netgo osusergo' -ldflags '-X "code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/v12/internal/pkg/ver.version=v12.1.0-zsf"' -o forgejo-runner.aarch64-linux
GOARCH=loong64 GOOS=linux go build -v -tags 'netgo osusergo' -ldflags '-X "code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/v12/internal/pkg/ver.version=v12.1.0-zsf"' -o forgejo-runner.loongarch64-linux
GOARCH=mips64le GOOS=linux go build -v -tags 'netgo osusergo' -ldflags '-X "code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/v12/internal/pkg/ver.version=v12.1.0-zsf"' -o forgejo-runner.mips64el-linux
GOARCH=ppc64le GOOS=linux go build -v -tags 'netgo osusergo' -ldflags '-X "code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/v12/internal/pkg/ver.version=v12.1.0-zsf"' -o forgejo-runner.powerpc64le-linux
GOARCH=riscv64 GOOS=linux go build -v -tags 'netgo osusergo' -ldflags '-X "code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/v12/internal/pkg/ver.version=v12.1.0-zsf"' -o forgejo-runner.riscv64-linux
GOARCH=s390x GOOS=linux go build -v -tags 'netgo osusergo' -ldflags '-X "code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/v12/internal/pkg/ver.version=v12.1.0-zsf"' -o forgejo-runner.s390x-linux
GOARCH=amd64 GOOS=linux go build -v -tags 'netgo osusergo' -ldflags '-X "code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/v12/internal/pkg/ver.version=v12.1.0-zsf"' -o forgejo-runner.x86_64-linux

GOARCH=arm64 GOOS=darwin go build -v -tags 'netgo osusergo' -ldflags '-X "code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/v12/internal/pkg/ver.version=v12.1.0-zsf"' -o forgejo-runner.aarch64-macos

GOARCH=amd64 GOOS=netbsd go build -v -tags 'netgo osusergo' -ldflags '-X "code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/v12/internal/pkg/ver.version=v12.1.0-zsf"' -o forgejo-runner.x86_64-netbsd

GOARCH=amd64 GOOS=openbsd go build -v -tags 'netgo osusergo' -ldflags '-X "code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/v12/internal/pkg/ver.version=v12.1.0-zsf"' -o forgejo-runner.x86_64-openbsd

GOARCH=arm64 GOOS=windows go build -v -tags 'netgo osusergo' -ldflags '-X "code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/v12/internal/pkg/ver.version=v12.1.0-zsf"' -o forgejo-runner.aarch64-windows.exe
GOARCH=amd64 GOOS=windows go build -v -tags 'netgo osusergo' -ldflags '-X "code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/v12/internal/pkg/ver.version=v12.1.0-zsf"' -o forgejo-runner.x86_64-windows.exe

@aahlenst wrote in https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/pulls/1294#issuecomment-73374: > Asking, because I currently don't have the capacity to investigate that myself right now: Would cross compiling Forgejo Runner on Linux help to prevent such issues? Probably; that's what I do for Zig. All of these are built from `x86_64-linux`: https://codeberg.org/ziglang/runner/releases/tag/v12.1.0-zsf Specifically: ``` GOARCH=amd64 GOOS=freebsd go build -v -tags 'netgo osusergo' -ldflags '-X "code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/v12/internal/pkg/ver.version=v12.1.0-zsf"' -o forgejo-runner.x86_64-freebsd GOARCH=arm64 GOOS=linux go build -v -tags 'netgo osusergo' -ldflags '-X "code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/v12/internal/pkg/ver.version=v12.1.0-zsf"' -o forgejo-runner.aarch64-linux GOARCH=loong64 GOOS=linux go build -v -tags 'netgo osusergo' -ldflags '-X "code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/v12/internal/pkg/ver.version=v12.1.0-zsf"' -o forgejo-runner.loongarch64-linux GOARCH=mips64le GOOS=linux go build -v -tags 'netgo osusergo' -ldflags '-X "code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/v12/internal/pkg/ver.version=v12.1.0-zsf"' -o forgejo-runner.mips64el-linux GOARCH=ppc64le GOOS=linux go build -v -tags 'netgo osusergo' -ldflags '-X "code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/v12/internal/pkg/ver.version=v12.1.0-zsf"' -o forgejo-runner.powerpc64le-linux GOARCH=riscv64 GOOS=linux go build -v -tags 'netgo osusergo' -ldflags '-X "code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/v12/internal/pkg/ver.version=v12.1.0-zsf"' -o forgejo-runner.riscv64-linux GOARCH=s390x GOOS=linux go build -v -tags 'netgo osusergo' -ldflags '-X "code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/v12/internal/pkg/ver.version=v12.1.0-zsf"' -o forgejo-runner.s390x-linux GOARCH=amd64 GOOS=linux go build -v -tags 'netgo osusergo' -ldflags '-X "code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/v12/internal/pkg/ver.version=v12.1.0-zsf"' -o forgejo-runner.x86_64-linux GOARCH=arm64 GOOS=darwin go build -v -tags 'netgo osusergo' -ldflags '-X "code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/v12/internal/pkg/ver.version=v12.1.0-zsf"' -o forgejo-runner.aarch64-macos GOARCH=amd64 GOOS=netbsd go build -v -tags 'netgo osusergo' -ldflags '-X "code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/v12/internal/pkg/ver.version=v12.1.0-zsf"' -o forgejo-runner.x86_64-netbsd GOARCH=amd64 GOOS=openbsd go build -v -tags 'netgo osusergo' -ldflags '-X "code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/v12/internal/pkg/ver.version=v12.1.0-zsf"' -o forgejo-runner.x86_64-openbsd GOARCH=arm64 GOOS=windows go build -v -tags 'netgo osusergo' -ldflags '-X "code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/v12/internal/pkg/ver.version=v12.1.0-zsf"' -o forgejo-runner.aarch64-windows.exe GOARCH=amd64 GOOS=windows go build -v -tags 'netgo osusergo' -ldflags '-X "code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/v12/internal/pkg/ver.version=v12.1.0-zsf"' -o forgejo-runner.x86_64-windows.exe ```

mfenniak approved these changes 2026-01-14 20:19:42 +00:00

mfenniak merged commit b94074176c into main 2026-01-14 20:20:05 +00:00

mfenniak referenced this pull request from a commit 2026-01-14 20:20:07 +00:00

fix: unbreak the build for platforms w/o docker support (#1294)

mfenniak commented 2026-01-14 20:22:53 +00:00

Owner

Copy link

@alexrp Thanks for the fix!

@alexrp Thanks for the fix!

aahlenst commented 2026-01-14 20:32:16 +00:00

Member

Copy link

@mfenniak Would you be on board with cross-compiling during CI, without actually publishing binaries?

@mfenniak Would you be on board with cross-compiling during CI, without actually publishing binaries?

mfenniak commented 2026-01-14 20:40:41 +00:00

Owner

Copy link

I'd be interested in trying it -- without it being a commitment to support those platforms.

This kind of compilation error is easily avoidable during a PR if it's noticed, and we could at least hit that level of support. If other more complex situations come up where the value versus effort isn't as clear, we could discuss the situation in an informed way rather than blunder into breaking something.

I'd be interested in trying it -- without it being a commitment to support those platforms. This kind of compilation error is easily avoidable during a PR if it's noticed, and we could at least hit that level of support. If other more complex situations come up where the value versus effort isn't as clear, we could discuss the situation in an informed way rather than blunder into breaking something.

viceice commented 2026-01-14 20:46:57 +00:00

Owner

Copy link

sounds also good to me. should be documented too, so it's clear we only check for compile errors, but not for runtime breaking issues

sounds also good to me. should be documented too, so it's clear we only check for compile errors, but not for runtime breaking issues

viceice-bot referenced this pull request 2026-01-17 20:01:59 +00:00

Update forgejo-runner to v12.5.3 #1305

viceice-bot referenced this pull request from actions/setup-forgejo 2026-01-18 00:10:07 +00:00

Update dependency forgejo/runner to v12.5.3 #838

mfenniak referenced this pull request from a commit 2026-01-18 01:24:16 +00:00

Update dependency forgejo/runner to v12.5.3 (#838)

forgejo-mirror referenced this pull request from a commit 2026-01-18 03:01:30 +00:00

Update module code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/v12 to v12.5.3 (forgejo) (#10911)

forgejo-mirror referenced this pull request from a commit 2026-01-23 04:01:23 +00:00

Update module code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/v12 to v12.6.0 (v14.0/forgejo) (#11001)

Sign in to join this conversation.

Reviewers

No reviewers

mfenniak

Labels

Clear labels   

FreeBSD

  

Kind/Breaking

Breaking change that won't be backward compatible

  

Kind/Bug

Something is not working

  

Kind/Chore

It is no fun but it needs to be done, this is a chore.

  

Kind/DependencyUpdate

for pull requests that are created by renovate when updating a dependency

  

Kind/Documentation

Documentation changes

  

Kind/Enhancement

Improve existing functionality

  

Kind/Feature

New functionality

  

Kind/Security

This is security issue

  

Kind/Testing

Issue or pull request related to testing

  

Priority

Critical

The priority is critical

  

Priority

High

The priority is high

  

Priority

Low

The priority is low

  

Priority

Medium

The priority is medium

  

Reviewed

Confirmed

Issue has been confirmed

  

Reviewed

Duplicate

This issue or pull request already exists

  

Reviewed

Invalid

Invalid issue

  

Reviewed

Won't Fix

This issue won't be fixed

  

Status

Abandoned

Somebody has started to work on this but abandoned work

  

Status

Blocked

Something is blocking this issue or pull request

  

Status

Need More Info

Feedback is required to reproduce issue or to continue work

  

Windows

Windows ports is an independent project, see https://github.com/Crown0815/Forgejo-runner-windows-builder

  

linux-powerpc64le

powerpc64le

  

linux-riscv64

  

linux-s390x

  

run-end-to-end-tests

Run https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/end-to-end with a runner compiled from this pull request

  

run-forgejo-tests

Run https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo tests importing the runner from this pull request

No labels

FreeBSD

Kind/Breaking

Kind/Bug

Kind/Chore

Kind/DependencyUpdate

Kind/Documentation

Kind/Enhancement

Kind/Feature

Kind/Security

Kind/Testing

Priority

Critical

Priority

High

Priority

Low

Priority

Medium

Reviewed

Confirmed

Reviewed

Duplicate

Reviewed

Invalid

Reviewed

Won't Fix

Status

Abandoned

Status

Blocked

Status

Need More Info

Windows

linux-powerpc64le

linux-riscv64

linux-s390x

run-end-to-end-tests

run-forgejo-tests

Milestone

Clear milestone

No items

No milestone

Projects

Clear projects

No items

No project

Assignees

Clear assignees

No assignees

4 participants

Notifications

Subscribe

Due date

The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference

forgejo/runner!1294

No description provided.