GV

GeezerVison

The World Wide Web, restored to 800 pixels of glory.

Home|About|Gaming cabinet|Archives|How it works|Starter sites

On this site

  • Sign in
  • ActionsCI/CD and automation
  • CodespacesCloud development environments
  • All Features
  • Documentation
  • Training
  • Certifications
  • Build with Copilot
  • Customize Copilot
  • Integrations
  • Trending repos
  • GitHub Sponsors
  • Developer articles
  • Enterprises

This view

  • Original page
  • New address

GeezerVison is showing github.com — Drop s390x from Node 25+ Alpine images by sxa · Pull Request #2462 · nodejs/docker-node

Conversation

@sxa

@sxa sxa commented Apr 15, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Description

Stop publishing docker images for Alpine on the s390x architecture

Motivation and Context

Alpine in general is an experimental platform and is only built in our infrastructure as part of the unofficial-builds project. Additionally, unofficial builds only covers x64 and arm64 architectures, so others are arguably a lower level of support below those experimental platforms which is where Alpine/s390x lies. Since they are not built in the unofficial builds project, the Alpine/s390x node binaries are built by compiling the code on the fly when the docker image is built. (EDIT: As per nschonni's comment below arm64 is also done on the fly due to the lack of checksum in the dockerfiles for anything other than x64) Because of this, I'm not overly comfortable with having these declared as "official" docker images.

We do not currently have explicit download statistics for the Alpine/s390x official dockerhub images (@tianon @yosifkit can we get a breakdown by platform somehow? (Feel free to contact me privately if you'd prefer not to discuss in this issue)

For this reason, and by way of precedent we also removed Alpine/ppc64le by @nschonni) which is likely at a similar usage level some time ago due to a build break at the time without too much pushback (Noting nodejs/help#5141 recently!) so I would expect Alpine/s390x to be similar.

Testing Details

Example Output(if appropriate)

Types of changes

  • Documentation
  • Version change (Update, remove or add more Node.js versions)
  • Variant change (Update, remove or add more variants, or versions of variants)
  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
  • Other (none of the above)

Checklist

  • My code follows the code style of this project.
  • My change requires a change to the documentation.
  • I have updated the documentation accordingly.
  • I have read the CONTRIBUTING.md document.
  • All new and existing tests passed.

Alternate options

  • Add it to unofficial-builds and use the binary from there as per Alpine on x64 and arm64 (Would need someone willing to maintain it there)
  • Re-enable Alpine/ppc64le to bring it in sync with what Alpine/s390x currently does as I believe it does now build (Since there hasn't been much pushback from removing it this doesn't quite feel right with the information we currently have.
  • Push this, and any other experimental platforms, to an unofficial dockerhub repository
  • Promote Alpine to be a non-experimental platform. While this may happen, I feel it's unlikely that we would include ppc64le or s390x there.

Notes

Leaving as draft for now so this can be discussed before merging, although I'd like to make sure we do not add it for v26. This PR currently only targets node25 although it could be done for earlier versions too (to put it in line with Alpine/ppc64le) depending on feedback.

Noting also that the functionality to build within the images could be removed if this change gets accepted.

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions
@sxa
Drop s390x from Node 25+ Alpine builds
32dbd92
Signed-off-by: Stewart X Addison <[email protected]>
@nschonni

nschonni commented Apr 15, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Although unoffical-builds does produce an arm64 binary, it is not used by the images here. I think mixed among the recent-ish discussions was whether we should just drop even that pre-built, and just use the Docker infrastructure for all the Alpine variants.

I'm +0 on dropping the x390, since you might have more visibility into the general support for that combo from your previous IBM role.

sxa reacted with thumbs up emoji
All reactions
  • 👍 1 reaction

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@sxa sxa mentioned this pull request Apr 15, 2026
Promote Alpine Linux out of experimental to be a tier 2 platform nodejs/node#62764
Open
@MikeMcC399

MikeMcC399 commented Apr 20, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Leaving as draft for now so this can be discussed before merging, although I'd like to make sure we do not add it for v26.

V26 release is planned for Wednesday Apr 22, 2026, this week. May 5, 2026.

To influence what goes into V26 would need an urgent decision, unless it is acceptable to drop s390.x during the current phase of v26 before it transitions to LTS in Oct 2026.

V25 is in maintenance since 2026-04-01 until it reaches its EOL in 2026-06-01. I'd expect perhaps one security release in May 2026 and then it's finished.

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@MikeMcC399

MikeMcC399 commented Apr 20, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

For cross-reference https://github.com/IBM/action-runner-image-pz shows IBM open source offerings:

Supported Architectures

  • ppc64le
  • s390x
  • x86_64

Supported Operating Systems

  • Ubuntu: Versions 22.04, and 24.04.
  • CentOS: Version 9.
All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@sxa

sxa commented Apr 20, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

For cross-reference https://github.com/IBM/action-runner-image-pz shows IBM open source offerings:

Which is fine for the purposes of this PR as it doesn't include Alpine :-)

MikeMcC399 reacted with thumbs up emoji
All reactions
  • 👍 1 reaction

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@sxa

sxa commented Apr 20, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

I'm going to take this out of draft on the basis that I haven't heard anyone with a significant objection (I've asked in the internal IBM slack too and no-one has objected so far). It could be done for 26 only (perhaps when we add that version?) and I'd be ok with that as part of doing this for 25 was to make sure it got copied that way for the new 26 files.

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@sxa
sxa marked this pull request as ready for review April 20, 2026 17:26
@nschonni

nschonni commented Apr 20, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Since 25 is only "alive" till June 1st, I'd probably just leave it. Maybe it makes sense to start the v26 PR and ensure that it doesn't include it.

MikeMcC399 reacted with thumbs up emoji
All reactions
  • 👍 1 reaction

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

MikeMcC399
MikeMcC399 reviewed Apr 21, 2026
View reviewed changes

@MikeMcC399 MikeMcC399 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

There was a problem hiding this comment.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Since PR #2474 now picks up this proposal to drop s390x from v26, it may be better to concentrate on v26 only and drop any change to v25 at this late stage in its lifetime.

I'm echoing @nschonni 's comment above, and suggest now that this PR be closed in favor of #2474

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions
@sxa
sxa marked this pull request as draft April 21, 2026 09:20
@sxa

sxa commented Apr 21, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Yep I agree. Sticking it back in draft for now and I'll close once the v26 one with the change is merged.

MikeMcC399 reacted with thumbs up emoji
All reactions
  • 👍 1 reaction

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@sxa

sxa commented Apr 21, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Although unoffical-builds does produce an arm64 binary, it is not used by the images here. I think mixed among the recent-ish discussions was whether we should just drop even that pre-built, and just use the Docker infrastructure for all the Alpine variants.

While there are reasons that i won't go into here why that might be desirable, IMHO that would push it further away from the "regular" tier1/2 platforms. Since we're building it anyway (and people are downloading it independently of the docker images at a rate of about 1000/hour) I'd prefer the container image to have the identical build that we produce in the unofficial projects.

I'll spin off another issue about whether to process the unofficial Alpine/aarch64 built in the same way as Alpine/x64 since that's separate from Alpine/s390x.

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@sxa sxa mentioned this pull request Apr 21, 2026
Pull Alpine/aarch64 tarball from unofficial builds as we do for Alpine/x64 #2475
Closed
@MikeMcC399 MikeMcC399 added the alpine Alpine operating system label May 5, 2026
@MikeMcC399

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view
@MikeMcC399

MikeMcC399 commented May 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Closing, as this is now implemented in

docker-node/versions.json

Lines 11 to 18 in e9ad293

"alpine3.22": [
"amd64",
"arm64v8"
],
"alpine3.23": [
"amd64",
"arm64v8"
],

and published as such to Docker Hub for Node.js 26.0.0

image
All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@MikeMcC399 MikeMcC399 closed this May 7, 2026
@sxa

sxa commented May 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Yep thanks.

MikeMcC399 reacted with thumbs up emoji
All reactions
  • 👍 1 reaction

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@MikeMcC399 MikeMcC399 added the s390x label Nov 12, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@MikeMcC399 MikeMcC399 MikeMcC399 left review comments

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

alpine Alpine operating system s390x

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

3 participants

@sxa @nschonni @MikeMcC399
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
You are visitor 01402503 — GeezerVison does not store the pages you look up.
Best viewed with Netscape Navigator 4.7 or Internet Explorer 6 at 800×600. No cookies required.