act

This sucks, it make me feel so silly after decide to move back to github self hosted runners just because I do not want to run act on a remote ARM64 server. I was just using act (https://github.com/nektos/act) on my local server to build the X64 packages for my project, since I want to streamline it with ARM64 support, I migrated to the github self hosted runners. This is really ridiculous, is M$ really lack that money just to schedule the Jobs running not in there infra?

I'm late to the party, but Gitea as has Gitea Actions[0] based on their fork[1] of act[2]. Their claim is that it's mostly compatible with GitHub Actions. I wonder if this can be spun off to have the control plane run separately and integrate into GitHub Action. Or alternatively mirror the repo for Gitea Actions only. [0] https://docs.gitea.com/usage/actions/overview [1] https://gitea.com/gitea/act / https://gitea.com/gitea/act_runner [2] http://github.com/nektos/act

Also supported by Forgejo actions: https://forgejo.org/docs/latest/user/actions/quick-start/ - both based on https://github.com/nektos/act

I guess it was only a matter of time... Part of this is fair since there is a cost to operating the control plane. One way around this is to go back to using check runs. I imagine a third party could handle webhooks, parse the .github/workflows/example.yml, then execute the action via https://github.com/nektos/act (or similar), then post the result.

I’m building an open-source project to reduce GitHub Actions CI costs by running jobs on self-hosted runners on owned hardware. The motivation is to fill the gap between local workflow execution by projects like https://github.com/nektos/act and self-hosted runner setups on the cloud. My team’s requirements are simple and we don’t require all the features. We hope to keep ops simple and save costs. Any efficiency boost due to caching will be A bonus

I'm assuming the lockfile should be checked into the repo itself, which presents a bootstrapping problem if you have to run an action to create the lockfile in the first place. They may need to build proper support for running actions locally -- there is the third-party https://github.com/nektos/act tool which might be a starting point, but that's mostly designed so you can debug actions without having to repeatedly push and rerun. Probably they'll need a separate mechanism to statically analyze actions without running them.

You should really check out (pun intended) `act` https://github.com/nektos/act

Forgejo is a fork of Gitea is a fork of Gogs is a clone of old GitHub in Go. Why the Forgejo fork? Gitea Actions and Forgejo Actions build from GitHub Actions YAML with with nektos/act. nektos/act: https://github.com/nektos/act What would be the new commands to locally build from an SRPM and locally sign the built RPM? Gitea/Forgejo has an OCI Image registry / Artifact registry, which supports signatures for any sort of artifact. Fedora has RPM 6 with the updated GPG support. Would there be any value to using OCI artifact registries for RPM packages, and how would mirroring work?

To run your github actions locally, we've had decent success with this tool: https://github.com/nektos/act Just be warned if you try it out that if you don't specify which workflow to run, it will just run them all!

One might just start by get a lay of the land. Why is no comparison made with act, same goal and same language? 65k stars. https://github.com/nektos/act

Just want to plug https://github.com/ChristopherHX/github-act-runner (not mine) It's re-implementation of the GHA self-hosted runner in Go for self-hosted runners, based on the popular https://github.com/nektos/act for running GHA locally. Been using this for over a year now and it's been infinitely useful for CI on otherwise unsupported systems (e.g. freeBSD, openBSD in my case).

I use act to run github CI locally fwiw https://github.com/nektos/act

Seems like that was also closed for about half a year, maybe GP came across [this discussion](https://github.com/nektos/act/issues/553#issuecomment-791562...) during that period and (understandably) came to their conclusion from that.

There's a long-open issue[1] for Podman support. Maybe they're just tired of dups? [1] https://github.com/nektos/act/issues/303