You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This is cross posted from here because I am unsure about where to post a feature request for Action Runner Sets. This board is where the "new issue" page directs us to, but it seems like the other place is where the conversations are really taking place. In any case...
Currently the Runner Set runner image ships with no more packages than are necessary. This makes it extremely awkward to develop workflows (especially public shared workflows) that run on both GitHub hosted runners and self-hosted runners, as you have to have the workflows install commands which are preinstalled on the GitHub hosted runners.
Obviously you want to slim the image down from the 20 GB of the GitHub hosted image to something that can be pulled all the time, and I'm not arguing for full feature parity, but please reconsider installing some extremely commonly used tools, such as
git
curl
wget
It just seems insane on the face of it that we have to install git in an Official GitHub action runner image. Being able to retrieve files via curl and wget are so basic to bootstrapping anything else that the only argument I can see against including them is that they duplicate each other. Nevertheless, both are so popular (and small) that it seems needlessly dogmatic not to include them both.
I estimate that including just these 3 extra tools will cover 80% of the issues. I would prefer you also include jq, which, along with the other 3, would cover nearly all of my workflows, but I agree is not so basic.
The argument that we can build our own image neglects the fact that any marketplace or shared workflow that wants to be able to run on a self-hosted Runner Set must assume that only the tools on the official GitHub images are present. It also neglects the significant effort it takes to build, publish, and keep up-to-date a custom image.
ActionsBuild, test, and automate your deployment pipeline with world-class CI/CDProduct FeedbackShare your thoughts and suggestions on GitHub features and improvements
1 participant
Heading
Bold
Italic
Quote
Code
Link
Numbered list
Unordered list
Task list
Attach files
Mention
Reference
Menu
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Select Topic Area
Product Feedback
Body
This is cross posted from here because I am unsure about where to post a feature request for Action Runner Sets. This board is where the "new issue" page directs us to, but it seems like the other place is where the conversations are really taking place. In any case...
Currently the Runner Set runner image ships with no more packages than are necessary. This makes it extremely awkward to develop workflows (especially public shared workflows) that run on both GitHub hosted runners and self-hosted runners, as you have to have the workflows install commands which are preinstalled on the GitHub hosted runners.
Obviously you want to slim the image down from the 20 GB of the GitHub hosted image to something that can be pulled all the time, and I'm not arguing for full feature parity, but please reconsider installing some extremely commonly used tools, such as
It just seems insane on the face of it that we have to install
gitin an Official GitHub action runner image. Being able to retrieve files viacurlandwgetare so basic to bootstrapping anything else that the only argument I can see against including them is that they duplicate each other. Nevertheless, both are so popular (and small) that it seems needlessly dogmatic not to include them both.I estimate that including just these 3 extra tools will cover 80% of the issues. I would prefer you also include
jq, which, along with the other 3, would cover nearly all of my workflows, but I agree is not so basic.The argument that we can build our own image neglects the fact that any marketplace or shared workflow that wants to be able to run on a self-hosted Runner Set must assume that only the tools on the official GitHub images are present. It also neglects the significant effort it takes to build, publish, and keep up-to-date a custom image.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions