On 07.06.2021 at 10:02, Nikita Popov wrote: > On Sun, Jun 6, 2021 at 3:26 PM Christoph M. Becker <cmbecke...@gmx.de> > wrote:
>> on Tuesday, PHP 8.1.0alpha1 is supposed to be tagged, and since I don't >> have the capacity to do these builds manually (as currently done with >> the PHP 8.0 builds), I've set up an automation which does the builds on >> GH action runners[1]. > > To clarify, this builds the binary Windows release artifacts? Automating > that using GH actions is great. Right, that is about building the relese artifacts, which will then be available from <https://windows.php.net/>. >> This should likely be integrated into php-src or >> php-sdk, whereyby the latter needs to be forked into a php organization >> repo as soon as possible, since there is a pending commit regarding the >> exclusion of yet unsupported PGO training scenarios, and we also should >> roll a new SDK release, and update some of the bundled tools. > > Is php-sdk referring to https://github.com/microsoft/php-sdk-binary-tools? > Having this in the PHP organization sounds reasonable, though I don't > really follow your reasoning. How is the exclusion of PGO training > scenarios relevant here? Is the concern here that Microsoft will not be > maintaining the SDK for new PHP versions, so the PHP organization should > take over doing that going forward? Indeed, Microsoft has no intentions to maintain that repo for PHP 8, so we need to fork. >> While these builds are >> automated, and mostly work well, there are sometimes issues with new >> releases and the dependency libraries are rarely updated (a lot of >> these[2] are ancient versions). And although I'm planning to enable >> snapshot builds when PHP 8.1 enters the beta release cycle (as usual), >> and to do the mass rebuild after PHP 8.1.0 is released, I won't be able >> to spend much time to help with resolving issues. In my opinion, it >> would be beneficial to push the burden of providing Windows builds to >> the extension maintainers. There are already AppVeyor integrations for >> several PECL extensions, some of them producing binaries which are >> basically identical to the PECL builds, and generally Windows CI should >> be helpful for package maintainers to detect potential issues before new >> releases. Furthermore, extensions maintainers would be more flexible >> regarding the supported PHP version (currently, the PECL builds are done >> for PHP 7.3, 7.4 and 8.0 only). > > I see some possible complications here, mainly around storage and > accessibility of the produced artifacts. Artifacts produced by AppVeyor are > only stored for one month and not easily found. A nice thing about the > current system is that the artifacts for all extensions can be found in one > central place. > > The minimum would be to move artifacts from AppVeyor into GitHub release > artifacts to make sure they're persistent, which is rather tedious without > some automation (there are >16 Windows release artifacts for apcu). AppVeyor (and other CI providers) allows to upload artifacts to arbitrary locations; at least AppVeyor supports uploading of artifacts to GH realeases[1], so this could be automated. I'd be very surprised, if other GH CI providers wouldn't support that as well. [1] <https://www.appveyor.com/docs/deployment/github/> > Regarding dependencies, does this mean that extensions should also build > DLLs for dependency libraries themselves? Are there any concerns about > different extensions building different versions of the same library, or > similar? Oh, right, that could be an issue. Maybe we should stick with providing the dependencies from windows.php.net? Not sure how to handle the details, though. This doesn't look super urgent to me, but I would like to see more (Windows) CI integrations of the package repos soon. Reusable, publicly available GH actions might make CI integration for packages super simple even on Windows. Any help welcome! Christoph -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
