Suggestions for improvements to the external tool installation process
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- C#
- Stars
- 6.3k
- Forks
- 1.4k
- Avg merge
- 1d 16h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 24
Description
- Add support for the 32-bit platform (For testing on a 32-bit platform using the container feature)
- Upgrade Node.js to latest LTS release
For now, we do that in file https://github.com/actions/runner/blob/main/src/Misc/externals.sh, but the URLs used for installation are inconsistently.
Nevertheless, using the official distfiles from the Node.js team is not ideal because there is no one for 32-bit.
It's not a bad idea to create a repository for building packages for the runner and build things like Node.js there, what do you think?
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reviewing src/Misc/externals.sh and its current external-tool URLs, then compare the requested 32-bit support and Node.js LTS upgrade with the runner platforms. Done should mean the installation process consistently obtains the required tools and supports the stated 32-bit container-testing case, with the package-building approach resolved.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- node.js, shell
- Domain
- build-system, infrastructure
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100