harbor-arm
harbor-arm copied to clipboard
goharbor
Require image for ARM64 architecture
Hi Team,
I am trying to use goharbor/harbor-arm on ARM64 architecture but it seems ARM64 tag is not available in Docker Hub for the same.
I have raised an issue on goharbor/harbor but the member has suggested to open the issue here. Issue Link: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/issues/16959
It seems like you are building it on GHA by self-hosted runner.
It will be very helpful if the image is released for the ARM64 platform. Do you have any plans to release an ARM64 image?
If required, I am happy to contribute. Can you please provide me with some pointers?
Hi Team,
I am trying to use goharbor/harbor-arm on ARM64 architecture but it seems ARM64 tag is not available in Docker Hub for the same.
I have raised an issue on goharbor/harbor but the member has suggested to open the issue here. Issue Link: goharbor/harbor#16959
It seems like you are building it on GHA by self-hosted runner.
It will be very helpful if the image is released for the ARM64 platform. Do you have any plans to release an ARM64 image?
If required, I am happy to contribute. Can you please provide me with some pointers?
Thank you very much, we are working hard to make the Harbor ARM image. At present, there are some problems in the automated test, so there is no official release. We are solving this problem.
@Jeremy-boo Thanks for the reply. I was curious to ask what’s your long-term plan for Arm support? Is the long-term plan include keeping Habor-arm separate from Harbor?
Our ultimate goal is to hope that arm can be built in the harbor repo, but for now, we will keep harbor-arm separate from harbor for the next period of time
@odidev
Early access could be found in https://github.com/orgs/octohelm/packages?repo_name=harbor (just newest version) Without any testing, just image build.
It works well in my cluster (with external redis and pg)
@odidev
Early access could be found in https://github.com/orgs/octohelm/packages?repo_name=harbor (just newest version) Without any testing, just image build.
It works well in my cluster (with external redis and pg)
How do you use these images? Only the base ones seem to have multiarch support (see harbor-core vs harbor-core-base)
@jamezrin Sorry. 2.5.x changed some envvar in Makefile, I miss it for final push. https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/compare/release-2.5.0...morlay:release-2.5.0#diff-7747613b3e12f11d61bfe1fd8a6bd18298bc206c697514131a0923aedbc80beeR24
Pls use v2.5.2 instead (the CI only support compile latest minor version)
@jamezrin Sorry. 2.5.x changed some envvar in Makefile, I miss it for final push. goharbor/[email protected]:release-2.5.0diff-7747613b3e12f11d61bfe1fd8a6bd18298bc206c697514131a0923aedbc80beeR24
Pls use
v2.5.2instead (the CI only support compile latest minor version)
Thank you so much, I got harbor running perfectly with that new release. Amazing work!
Hope to support as soon as possible, I am still investigating how to deploy arm harbor offline
I want to arm harbor offline, who can suport me,tks We are working on harbor arm construction, any progress will be reflected in this pr, you can pay attention to this pr first https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/pull/17968
Yes, we clearly want ARM64 solutions, please spend some time on it, we need it!
Hey, It has been a long pending request. It would be great to have buildx support for images.
Intel architecture is loosing day after day. ARM and RISC are the future. But for now, we just want harbor for ARM, you can work for RISC later ;)
If you really need harbor for arm64 you can use https://github.com/octohelm/harbor from @morlay.
While it is not always up-to-date, it is extremely stable, at least for me. I haven't had any problems in the year and a half I have had it deployed (updated multiple times, currently running 2.9.1)
It looks as if there is not enough development capacity. There is no plan or roadmap to support ARM. They are open to any contribution from the community: https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/issues/20074