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

Proposed CI workflow changes for Interstellar (Specific to AppImage Builds) #129

Open
psadi opened this issue Mar 27, 2025 · 2 comments
Open
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@psadi
Copy link

psadi commented Mar 27, 2025

Describe the feature

Continuing from #101,

Based on my CI analysis, the existing workflow is as follows:

  1. Create draft release
  2. Create build (matrix for windows, Linux (x86, arm), android)
  3. Build appimage (calling build script) / build with some customisation based on the runner platform
  4. Publish release with built artifacts

Proposed Changes.

I suggest we decouple the AppImage build process from the current workflow and implement a separate downstream workflow that triggers after the completion of build_release . In this new workflow, we can utilise the pkgforge Arch image to build the AppImage with debloated packages + other customisations and publish the appimage artifacts to the existing release

The current workflow cannot accommodate this change because the existing matrix strategy uses a Windows runner, which would conflict with the introduction of the Arch image.

Please share your thoughts on this proposal. If you agree, I’d be happy to contribute the changes.

Additional context

No response

@psadi psadi added the enhancement New feature or request label Mar 27, 2025
@psadi psadi changed the title Proposed CI workflow changes for Interstellar (Specific to AppImage Changes) Proposed CI workflow changes for Interstellar (Specific to AppImage Builds) Mar 27, 2025
@jwr1
Copy link
Owner

jwr1 commented Mar 27, 2025

This sounds great! Would it be possible to just have a separate job inside the same workflow though? That way the workflow for the release is still all together.

@psadi
Copy link
Author

psadi commented Mar 27, 2025

This sounds great! Would it be possible to just have a separate job inside the same workflow though? That way the workflow for the release is still all together.

yep that would work, we can decouple at a job level or at a workflow level (comes down to preference xD)
I agree with your rationale for a combined release 💯

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants