Conversation
|
Even though arm runners are super common, you're probably better off forking the repo and adding support for ARM there. |
Could you please elaborate why this would be a better solution? Different architecture is already supported by the upstream tool. I'd find it confusing if I had to use different actions for different runners. |
|
The maintainer has zero interest in adding ARM support last I and others checked, unfortunately. |
|
@ludeeus Would you like make things easier for others and add support for ARM runners? Seems it'd be appreciated by the general community, especially since ARM runners will likely become the standard, given their benefits over AMD ones. |
Where did i say that? |
Once github hosted runners are out of preview, this can be added. |
That seems reasonable; thanks for the quick reply. I'll ping you once this happens. Cheers. |
In the PR I submitted a year or two back. Private/custom runners have supported ARM for a long time. Enterprises use them a lot. |
|
For completeness that PR points to this comment:
|
|
FWIW, ARM runners are out of public preview for a while now - so this possibly can be re-looked at I suppose? |
Sample run: https://github.com/LesnyRumcajs/action-shellcheck/actions/runs/13140996529
Adds support for ARM-based runners.
Closes #112