Add workflow for Linux Arm64

[rauletorresc]

Context: GitHub action must be available that automatically builds, on a schedule, Linux Arm64 wheels of Catalyst

Description of the Change: It builds and tests Catalyst AARCH64 Linux wheels inside a manylinux_aarch64 docker image on the macOS M2 runner

Benefits: Support for a new Linux Arm64

[sc-60597]

[sergei-mironov]

Hi @rauletorresc , the code looks much better, thanks! One minor concern that I have is about the folder naming: you put the scripts into the linux_arm64 folder but the scripts use dnf package manager which is specific to RedHat Linux distro family. Same for /opt/rh/* paths. Should we narrow down the folder name to capture the dependency on the RedHat infrastructure?

[rauletorresc]

Hi @rauletorresc , the code looks much better, thanks! One minor concern that I have is about the folder naming: you put the scripts into the linux_arm64 folder but the scripts use dnf package manager which is specific to RedHat Linux distro family. Same for /opt/rh/* paths. Should we narrow down the folder name to capture the dependency on the RedHat infrastructure?

This is because manylinux_2_28 uses AlmaLinux. Maybe renaming the folder to 'manylinux_2_28_aarch64' would reflect those dependencies better without being too specific?

[mlxd]

Hi @rauletorresc , the code looks much better, thanks! One minor concern that I have is about the folder naming: you put the scripts into the linux_arm64 folder but the scripts use dnf package manager which is specific to RedHat Linux distro family. Same for /opt/rh/* paths. Should we narrow down the folder name to capture the dependency on the RedHat infrastructure?

This is because manylinux_2_28 uses AlmaLinux. Maybe renaming the folder to 'manylinux_2_28_aarch64' would reflect those dependencies better without being too specific?

Since these are CI builder specific, and manylinux_2_x is the standard builder for Python wheels, I think it's probably fine to leave as is. If we want to be specific linux_arm64/rh8/build_catalyst.sh could be the path, and should imply compatibility with RedHat8 (incl. AlmaLinux8/manylinux_2_28 and Rocky Linux 8). Though, I'd say this only matters if the goal is to provide bash scripts to end users outside the CI env (i.e. not in the .github folder, but part of the package source scripts).

Though, I'll leave the decision to you both on what to do here.

[sergei-mironov]

Hi @rauletorresc , the code looks much better, thanks! One minor concern that I have is about the folder naming: you put the scripts into the linux_arm64 folder but the scripts use dnf package manager which is specific to RedHat Linux distro family. Same for /opt/rh/* paths. Should we narrow down the folder name to capture the dependency on the RedHat infrastructure?

This is because manylinux_2_28 uses AlmaLinux. Maybe renaming the folder to 'manylinux_2_28_aarch64' would reflect those dependencies better without being too specific?

Since these are CI builder specific, and manylinux_2_x is the standard builder for Python wheels, I think it's probably fine to leave as is. If we want to be specific linux_arm64/rh8/build_catalyst.sh could be the path, and should imply compatibility with RedHat8 (incl. AlmaLinux8/manylinux_2_28 and Rocky Linux 8). Though, I'd say this only matters if the goal is to provide bash scripts to end users outside the CI env (i.e. not in the .github folder, but part of the package source scripts).

Though, I'll leave the decision to you both on what to do here.

Leaving it without change would confuse other linux' users I think.

linux_arm64/rh8/build_catalyst.sh looks good, lets go with it!

[rauletorresc]

Hi @rauletorresc , the code looks much better, thanks! One minor concern that I have is about the folder naming: you put the scripts into the linux_arm64 folder but the scripts use dnf package manager which is specific to RedHat Linux distro family. Same for /opt/rh/* paths. Should we narrow down the folder name to capture the dependency on the RedHat infrastructure?

This is because manylinux_2_28 uses AlmaLinux. Maybe renaming the folder to 'manylinux_2_28_aarch64' would reflect those dependencies better without being too specific?

Since these are CI builder specific, and manylinux_2_x is the standard builder for Python wheels, I think it's probably fine to leave as is. If we want to be specific linux_arm64/rh8/build_catalyst.sh could be the path, and should imply compatibility with RedHat8 (incl. AlmaLinux8/manylinux_2_28 and Rocky Linux 8). Though, I'd say this only matters if the goal is to provide bash scripts to end users outside the CI env (i.e. not in the .github folder, but part of the package source scripts).
Though, I'll leave the decision to you both on what to do here.

Leaving it without change would confuse other linux' users I think.

linux_arm64/rh8/build_catalyst.sh looks good, lets go with it!

Done!