Skip to content

ci: publish standalone Linux binaries with GitHub releases - #112

Open
ilbertt wants to merge 1 commit into
Calnode:mainfrom
ilbertt:codex/standalone-release-binaries
Open

ilbertt wants to merge 1 commit into
Calnode:mainfrom
ilbertt:codex/standalone-release-binaries

Conversation

@ilbertt

@ilbertt ilbertt commented Oct 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Publish Linux amd64 and arm64 archives, including the license and SHA-256 checksums, with future tagged releases. This reuses the existing Docker build and adds standalone setup instructions, including the difference in Litestream backup behavior.

Following up on #108: I created nibrun to make open-source apps that ship as a single binary easy to deploy. Official release assets will let me finish Calnode’s one-click preset and app page, then propose a “Deploy on nibrun” button like PicoShare’s.

Validated with go test ./..., make build, and actionlint. Built and packaged both architectures, verified checksums, and ran each extracted binary under a 256 MB limit: health/readiness, database migrations, version metadata, embedded admin UI assets, and restart all passed.

@pullfrog

pullfrog Bot commented Oct 1, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Run failed. View the logs →

Pullfrog  | Rerun failed job ➔ | View workflow run | via Pullfrog | Using opencode-go/deepseek-v4.1-flash | 𝕏

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Oct 1, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

All contributors have signed the CLA. ✅
Posted by the CLA Assistant Lite bot.

@ilbertt
ilbertt marked this pull request as draft October 1, 2026 09:24
@ilbertt

ilbertt commented Oct 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

I have read the CLA Document and I hereby sign the CLA

github-actions Bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 1, 2026
@ilbertt ilbertt changed the title Publish standalone Linux binaries with GitHub releases ci: publish standalone Linux binaries with GitHub releases Oct 5, 2026

@shockalotti shockalotti left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Reviewed the diff — build correctness checks out (pure-Go sqlite, CGO_ENABLED=0 already in the builder, tzdata embedded, scratch-stage layout matches the tar paths, checksums attached, release gating correct, Dockerfile default target unaffected, docs accurate including the Litestream caveat).

Not merging yet for one reason: this is still a draft, and the entire new chain (export/package/upload/download/release) has never executed green anywhere — the fork workflow runs sit at action_required. Before merge: approve the fork workflows to run (or push to a non-fork branch) so Docker publish goes green on the PR, and dry-run the release job's download + create step somehow, since that line can never run on a PR by construction.

Optional efficiency nit: gate the export/package/upload steps to tags so every PR/main/dev build doesn't pay multi-arch packaging cost for artifacts only releases consume.

@ilbertt
ilbertt marked this pull request as ready for review October 13, 2026 06:46
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants