c5d5b14205 ci: add powerpc64 to GH Guix job matrix (UdjinM6)
Pull request description:
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
I guess we should make sure that binaries for every possible platform can be built via Guix with no issues even if we do not want to provide "official" binaries for it.
## What was done?
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_
Top commit has no ACKs.
Tree-SHA512: 6464b68a47e680bb379c82842599200d6917adb8f1493fa75ac80ddc7a6fea92a9190215cfa3f32b0bd88e2dd0425d4eb13846ea2d7e19e144afff9c1171ff13
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Client version string is inconsistent. Building `v20.0.0-beta.8` tag
locally produces binaries that report `v20.0.0-beta.8` version but
binaries built in guix would report
`v20.0.0rc1-g3e732a952226a20505f907e4fd9b3fdbb14ea5ee` instead. Building
any commit after `v20.0.0-beta.8` locally would result in versions like
`v20.0.0rc1-8c94153d2497` which is close but it's still yet another
format. And both versions with `rc1` in their names are confusing cause
you'd expect them to mention `beta.8` instead maybe (or is it just me?
:D ).
## What was done?
Change it so that the version string would look like this:
on tag: ~`v20.0.0-beta.8-dev` or `v20.0.0-beta.8-gitarc`~
`v20.0.0-beta.8`
post-tag: ~`v20.0.0-beta.8-1-gb837e08164-gitarc`~
`v20.0.0-beta.8-1-gb837e08164`
post-tag format is
`recent tag`-`commits since that tag`-`g+12 chars of commit hash`-`dirty
(optional)` ~-`dev or gitarc`~
~`dev`/`gitarc` suffixes should help avoiding confusion with the release
versions and they also indicate the way non-release binaries were
built.~
Note that release binaries do not use any of this, they still use
`PACKAGE_VERSION` from `configure` like before.
Also, `CLIENT_VERSION_RC` is no longer used in this setup so it was
removed.
Few things aren't clear to me yet:
1. Version bump in `configure.ac` no longer affects the reported version
(unless it's an actual release). Are there any downsides I might be
missing?
2. Which tag should we use on `develop` once we bump version in
configure? `v21.0.0-init`? `v21.0.0-alpha1`?
3. How is it going to behave once `merge master back into develop` kind
of PR is merged? E.g. say `develop` branch is on `v21.0.0-alpha1` tag
and we merge v20.1.0 from `master` back into it. Will this bring
`v20.1.0` release tag into `develop`? Will it become the one that will
be used from that moment? If so we will probably need another tag on
`develop` every time such PR is merged e.g. `v21.0.0-alpha2` (or
whatever the next number is).
Don't think these are blockers but would like to hear thoughts from
others.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Built binaries locally, built them using guix at a specific tag and at
some commit on top of it.
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
- Using `actions/cache` with a local buildx cache without the "move
cache" workaround will result in constant growth in cache size:
https://docs.docker.com/build/ci/github-actions/cache/#local-cache
## What was done?
- Docker natively supports the GHA Cache API, so we should use it for
faster and more efficient cache usage
- Actions were also bumped to current stable versions
## How Has This Been Tested?
Devs please test this by running a test Guix build from workflow
dispatch
## Breaking Changes
None
## Checklist:
_Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that
apply._
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
- We want to enable use of the AWS-hosted GitHub Actions runners, now
that [corresponding
infra](https://github.com/dcginfra/tf-aws-gh-runner/pull/8/files#diff-ad98d33884a302f6c747dc6b326c6b3af3887f2ec25e0bd7a0395f10444818f3)
exists to deploy these runners
## What was done?
Add new labels and workflow dispatch button to allow runner testing
## How Has This Been Tested?
Pending testing in CI
## Breaking Changes
None
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
see warnings in https://github.com/dashpay/dash/actions/runs/5462770856
## What was done?
https://github.blog/changelog/2022-10-11-github-actions-deprecating-save-state-and-set-output-commands/
## How Has This Been Tested?
n/a
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
1. not all binaries were covered with checksums
2. there were no checksums for archives
## What was done?
add missing checksums, also group and sort them
## How Has This Been Tested?
run commands after local guix build
see this PR results
## Breaking Changes
n/a
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Automated guix builds in CI when specifically requested
## What was done?
Any PR with the `build-guix` label added will automatically have the
Guix build ran and the hashes placed in the CI output to compare against
## How Has This Been Tested?
This PR
## Breaking Changes
None
## Checklist:
_Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that
apply._
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
