Add ppc64le support to Docker image and static node build workflows

[sandeepgupta12]

This PR adds support for the ppc64le (PowerPC 64-bit Little Endian) architecture across multiple GitHub Actions workflows and Docker build configurations.

🔧 Changes made:

1. CI Workflow (ci.yml)

• Added ubuntu-24.04:ppc64le image to the test matrix for NOXSESSION=tests.
  

2. Wheel Builder Workflow (wheel-builder.yml)

• Added two new manylinux containers for ppc64le:

  • manylinux2014:ppc64le
  • manylinux_2_28:ppc64le

• Skipped PyPy builds for ppc64le since official PyPy support is not available for this architecture.

3. Docker Image Builder Workflow (build-docker-images.yml)

• Added definitions to build:
  • Runner base image: cryptography-runner-ubuntu-24.04:ppc64le
  • Wheel images: manylinux2014:ppc64le, manylinux_2_28:ppc64le

4. Static Node Builder Workflow (build-static-node.yml)

• Included ppc64le as a target architecture for building static Node.js.

5. Dockerfile Update (cryptography-linux/Dockerfile)

• Extended platform-specific install block to recognize ppc64le.

[alex]

What steps do we need to take to actually hook the runners up here?

[sandeepgupta12]

What steps do we need to take to actually hook the runners up here?

Please apply for GHA runner access by creating an issue here:
🔗 https://github.com/IBM/actionspz/issues
You can refer to a similar NumPy issue for context:
🔗 IBM/actionspz#11

[alex]

Done: IBM/actionspz#21 thanks

[alex]

I think you'll need to re-push to get these builds to tirgger now that we have hge ppc64le builders

[reaperhulk]

Looks like the node static build wants the target name ppc64 and not ppc64le.

[alex]

It also looks like it's taking a significant amount of time for items to queue (i.e., we're still seeing the other builds haven't run yet) -- I'm just going to flag that if this is the case, it'll basically be impossible for us to turn on in CI, because of hte impact on developer workflow.

[sandeepgupta12]

Thanks for flagging this. We're aware that jobs aren't getting picked up at the moment — this appears to be related to an issue we haven’t encountered before. I’m actively looking into it and should have a fix in place shortly. Appreciate your patience in the meantime.

[alex]

I think we need to split this into two PRs: the node part needs to land first, and then then the other images in a follow up PR.

[sandeepgupta12]

I think we need to split this into two PRs: the node part needs to land first, and then then the other images in a follow up PR.

Makes sense — I’ll go ahead and split the changes. I’ll keep this PR focused on the Node.js part and raise a follow-up PR for the remaining image updates once this is merged.

[alex]

Sounds great, thanks for your contributions.

…

On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 9:37 AM sandeepgupta12 ***@***.***> wrote: sandeepgupta12 left a comment (pyca/infra#702) I think we need to split this into two PRs: the node part needs to land first, and then then the other images in a follow up PR. Makes sense — I’ll go ahead and split the changes. I’ll keep this PR focused on the Node.js part and raise a follow-up PR for the remaining image updates once this is merged. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>

-- All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing.