Benoit Daloze

From https://github.blog/2024-06-03-arm64-on-github-actions-powering-faster-more-efficient-build-systems/ > We expect to begin offering Arm runners for open source projects by the end of the year. So it looks like linux-arm64 runners won't be available as...

The only way to add linux-aarch64 support earlier is if GitHub provides free linux-aarch64 runners for the ruby organization, like it was done for macos-arm64 with `macos-arm-oss` (https://github.com/ruby/setup-ruby/issues/577#issuecomment-2000066452). @Steve-Glass Any...

> it will go to the formal action, which - ideally - is maintained by the Ruby people (since they know it best, and are invested in it) and "approved...

@thboop @eileencodes Any thoughts on this issue? Here is a recent example of the confusion this is causing: https://github.com/ruby/setup-ruby/pull/92#issuecomment-707136826

One more example: https://github.com/actions/virtual-environments/issues/281#issuecomment-709671522

From what I've seen this action is already [no longer published on the marketplace](https://github.com/marketplace?type=actions&query=setup+ruby) and `ruby/setup-ruby` is what people get when using the starter workflows. I wonder why people still...

If self-hosted is there any guarantee it's running one of the well-known virtual environments (ubuntu-latest/macos-latest/windows-latest)? If not, then it seems necessary to build Ruby yourself on that runner. Then you...

I'd suggest to use [ruby/setup-ruby](https://github.com/ruby/setup-ruby) which has all versions and 20.04 support since last weekend. `ruby/setup-ruby` is BTW now used in the Ruby starter workflow.

@ethomson That sounds great! PR created: https://github.com/actions/starter-workflows/pull/448

I was thinking something along the same line. We could have a separate GitHub action that just builds various Ruby versions for all virtual environments available in GitHub Action, for...