Composite Actions using Node 20 don't work with CentOS 7 #2906
Comments
|
This also affects
|
|
hey @ajschmidt8 ,
how did you effectively managed to downgrade your composite actions to a version that uses Node 16 so that the workflows continue to work? |
|
@TomasNovo you'll need to audit all of your workflows and look up Node v16 compatible versions ie: would need to be rolled back to a specific version of per https://github.com/FranzDiebold/github-env-vars-action/releases/tag/v2.7.0 |
|
I feel like this isn't getting the attention it needs: anyone using github actions to create manylinux2014 builds will no longer be able to build on that platform at all, if the proposed Node16->Node20 change becomes required. Is there any proposed mitigation of this? Am I incorrect in my assessment? |
|
Your assessment is correct. As a result, this change will have substantial negative impact on the Python community. #3128 sketches out a direction Github could take to resolve this, but there has been no response thus far. |
|
For those who are struggling here, I have a dirty way to make node 20 work with centos:7
NOTE: since we cannot cache that tar before node is set-up, this is abusing nodejs distribution, so you should make your own docker image that contains that tar (rather than download it every build) https://github.com/dixyes/ghactionsplay/blob/main/.github/workflows/glibc217node20.yml https://github.com/dixyes/ghactionsplay/actions/runs/9075609934/job/24936557854 |
Hello! this workaround worked for me for GH runner version 2.317 and 2.318 on a C7, but for 2.319 this is not working anymore and I am getting the issue Is there another way to make the latest GH runner version work on C7 + node20? |
... the Haskell image of it does not support running node20:
/__e/node20/bin/node: /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libm.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.27' not found (required by /__e/node20/bin/node)
/__e/node20/bin/node: /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.28' not found (required by /__e/node20/bin/node)
/__e/node20/bin/node: /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.25' not found (required by /__e/node20/bin/node)
I could try the following on GitHub actions:
env:
ACTIONS_RUNNER_FORCE_ACTIONS_NODE_VERSION: node16
ACTIONS_ALLOW_USE_UNSECURE_NODE_VERSION: true
as noted here: actions/runner#2906
However, it seems support for this was removed this spring anyway:
https://github.blog/changelog/2024-03-07-github-actions-all-actions-will-run-on-node20-instead-of-node16-by-default/
... or will be soon.
So I might as well stop running CI on older GHCs already...
|
+1 to fixing this issue I think using a statically linked node that just works for the built-in actions would be the way to go - as demonstrated here: #3128 Lots of people have hit this already: |
* fix(workflow): upgrade upload-artifact to v4 * fix(workflow): make action works by actions/runner#2906 (comment)
|
this is my workaround for grab a node20 compatible glibc dist (prebuilt) for linux x86_64 and save it to
|
Problem
As mentioned in the GitHub blog post below, Actions is currently transitioning from Node 16 to Node 20.
However, Node 20 seems to be incompatible with CentOS 7, which is listed as a compatible OS for self-hosted runners below:
This incompatibility seems to stem from the fact that NodeJS version 20 supports
glibc >=2.28(as seen in the link below), but CentOS 7 only hasglibc==2.17.The consequence of this is that composite actions that have been updated to use Node 20 no longer work with CentOS 7 host machines or containers.
Here is an example of the error message that results from trying to run a composite action using Node 20 on a CentOS 7 container:
As a result of this incompatibility, we've had to intentionally downgrade our composite actions to a version that uses Node 16 so that our workflows continue to work.
To Reproduce
Run the following workflow to exhibit the error message
Expected behavior
Since the documentation below states that self-hosted runners support CentOS 7, I would expect the above workflow to run to completion without any errors
Runner Version and Platform
Ubuntu 22.04, runner version
2.309.0The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: