Skip to content
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

What happened to binary releases? #4148

Closed
cmichi opened this issue Sep 13, 2021 · 17 comments · Fixed by #4362
Closed

What happened to binary releases? #4148

cmichi opened this issue Sep 13, 2021 · 17 comments · Fixed by #4362

Comments

@cmichi
Copy link

cmichi commented Sep 13, 2021

In the past you had always attached the binary build for various platforms to a release. What's the reason for stopping in the latest release?

This impacts us, since we used these binary releases in our CI setup. I only noticed that they no longer exist since our CI broke.

Moreover, we often recommended installing the binary release directly in our community. A number of stable Linux distributions still contain ancient binaryen releases, so this was an easy way to get the latest release for e.g. Ubuntu LTS (IIRC).

Yeah, so would be great if you could add them back :-).

@kripken
Copy link
Member

kripken commented Sep 13, 2021

I don't think we changed anything intentionally, but yes, the new version 102 lacks binaries.

Looks like builds failed:

https://github.com/WebAssembly/binaryen/actions/runs/1222083042

I'm not very familiar with github actions so those errors don't immediately suggest anything to me...

@sbc100 any ideas?

@sbc100
Copy link
Member

sbc100 commented Sep 13, 2021

Looks like the "upload-release-asset" step is failing for each of the builders.

- name: upload tarball
uses: actions/upload-release-asset@v1
env:
GITHUB_TOKEN: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}
with:
upload_url: ${{ github.event.release.upload_url }}
asset_path: ./${{ steps.archive.outputs.tarball }}
asset_name: ${{ steps.archive.outputs.tarball }}
asset_content_type: application/gzip

I have no clues yet as to why.

@maurolacy
Copy link

Looks like a temporary failure to me. I would just retry it, at least once.

@cmichi
Copy link
Author

cmichi commented Sep 14, 2021

Just noticed that another release was created today and the GHA failed for that one as well: https://github.com/WebAssembly/binaryen/actions/runs/1233610300.

@sbc100
Copy link
Member

sbc100 commented Sep 14, 2021

Indeed, looks like the upload recipe we were using has become unmaintained: #4151

@sbc100
Copy link
Member

sbc100 commented Sep 14, 2021

Well I tried 3 different alternative github action and they all failed in different ways :(

For now I guess we could download the aritfacts form the CI builder and then upload them manually to the release.. :(

@sbc100
Copy link
Member

sbc100 commented Sep 14, 2021

You can find the CI artifacts here: https://github.com/WebAssembly/binaryen/actions/runs/1222068571

Do those work for you?

@maurolacy
Copy link

maurolacy commented Sep 14, 2021

Looks like a timeout error or so.

Lots of info / workarounds here and here (notice these are pretty old). Didn't find anything conclusive on how to fix this, though.

@maurolacy
Copy link

You can find the CI artifacts here: https://github.com/WebAssembly/binaryen/actions/runs/1222068571

Do those work for you?

Not for us, as we are interested in the alpine-based build. I guess we'll switch to compiling our own version for both archs (Amd64 and Arm64).

aykevl added a commit to aykevl/Main that referenced this issue Oct 7, 2021
This is a toolkit often used when developing for WebAssembly.

I've used version 101 (and not version 102, which is the latest version)
because the latest version doesn't have any binaries. For details, see:
WebAssembly/binaryen#4148
aykevl added a commit to aykevl/Main that referenced this issue Oct 8, 2021
This is a toolkit often used when developing for WebAssembly.

I've used version 101 (and not version 102, which is the latest version)
because the latest version doesn't have any binaries. For details, see:
WebAssembly/binaryen#4148
issaclin32 pushed a commit to ScoopInstaller/Main that referenced this issue Oct 8, 2021
This is a toolkit often used when developing for WebAssembly.

I've used version 101 (and not version 102, which is the latest version)
because the latest version doesn't have any binaries. For details, see:
WebAssembly/binaryen#4148
@cmichi
Copy link
Author

cmichi commented Dec 1, 2021

Is there any update on this?

@sbc100 https://github.com/softprops/action-gh-release seems to be well maintained and supports uploading assets, so maybe it's possible to switch to that GHA?

@sbc100
Copy link
Member

sbc100 commented Dec 1, 2021

I'm giving it a try in #4362 but so far its not looking good. Seeing #403 errors.

sbc100 added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 1, 2021
sbc100 added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 1, 2021
@sbc100
Copy link
Member

sbc100 commented Dec 1, 2021

Looks like it works!

@cmichi
Copy link
Author

cmichi commented Dec 1, 2021

Looks like it works!

Hey that's great! Would this be a good opportunity for another release? 🙃

sbc100 added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 1, 2021
sbc100 added a commit to WebAssembly/wabt that referenced this issue Jan 12, 2022
sbc100 added a commit to WebAssembly/wabt that referenced this issue Jan 13, 2022
sbc100 added a commit to WebAssembly/wabt that referenced this issue Jan 13, 2022
sbc100 added a commit to WebAssembly/wabt that referenced this issue Jan 13, 2022
@tlively tlively reopened this Nov 18, 2022
@tlively
Copy link
Member

tlively commented Nov 18, 2022

Looks like version 111 is also missing binary assets. It doesn't look like a workflow was even kicked off for it: https://github.com/WebAssembly/binaryen/actions/workflows/create_release.yml

@sbc100
Copy link
Member

sbc100 commented Nov 18, 2022

I think maybe you have to push the tag.. not create it directly in the UI. Can you try deleting the tag and pushing it from your local checkout?

@tlively
Copy link
Member

tlively commented Nov 18, 2022

I did create the tag locally and push it up. I only used the UI to create the release from that tag.

@tlively
Copy link
Member

tlively commented Nov 22, 2022

I recreated the version_111 release using the GitHub UI rather than from an existing tag and that successfully kicked off the builders.

@tlively tlively closed this as completed Nov 22, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
5 participants