Feature Request: Official ARM64 Container Image for k9s

[kahirokunn]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Currently, the k9s container image is available only for the amd64 architecture. This limitation affects users who run their infrastructure on ARM64 platforms (e.g., Raspberry Pi, ARM-based servers, or cloud instances with ARM processors), preventing them from easily leveraging k9s without resorting to additional workarounds.

Describe the solution you'd like
I propose that an ARM64 version of the k9s container image be officially provided. Ideally, this should be implemented as a multi-architecture Docker image (using manifest lists) so that users can pull the correct image automatically based on their system architecture.

Describe alternatives you've considered
A possible workaround is building the ARM64 image locally from the source, but this adds extra steps and complexity for users. Alternatively, using emulation solutions like QEMU could be considered; however, these solutions may incur performance penalties and are not as reliable as having an official ARM64 image.

Additional context
Offering an official ARM64 container image would expand the usability of k9s to a broader range of devices and platforms, making it more accessible for developers and operators using ARM-based systems. This enhancement aligns with the growing trend of ARM64 adoption in cloud-native environments.

[derailed]

@kahirokunn Makes sense! All ears if you want (or someone else) wants to take a crack at it

[kahirokunn]

That's good.
For reference, where are you building and pushing the container image? 👀

[vonProteus]

This is a duplicate of #2849, but I would be satisfied with either of those ^_^

[kahirokunn]

I hadn't noticed that Issue. Since it’s a duplicate of #2849 and either is fine, I'll just leave it as is for now. Thx 🙏

[derailed]

@vonProteus Dockerfile is in the root of the repo.

[lterrac]

Hi folks! If no one is already working on this I would like to give it a go 😃

[kahirokunn]

Let's go 👍

[vonProteus]

@lterrac Please ensure that whenever a new version is released, a corresponding Docker image is also built and published.

[lterrac]

Hi guys, I am working on it.
By any chance, can you confirm the file used to do the release is .goreleaser.yml or do we want to create a dedicated action triggered on new releases?
If the latter, I was thinking of using docker buildx for the multi-arch build (probably with the action provided here). Does this seem reasonable to you?
One last thing: how do we test this? Got any ideas?

[vonProteus]

I'm not an expert or maintainer, but I believe you should release a test version of your fork for testing purposes. It appears that they're using a different method for releasing than GitHub Actions.

[lterrac]

I guess @derailed can enlighten us on which approach we should use 😃 I tried to look around in the repo, but I did not find anything about releases other than the fact goreleaser is used