CI: build armv8 64bit images

[Williangalvani]

just creating a draft to check if CI finds some errors for us

[Williangalvani]

it doesnt show a manually built version on version chooser for me, which probably means the architecture filter in there is workind.

[Williangalvani]

the tag for this branch doesnt show here though: https://hub.docker.com/layers/williangalvani/blueos-core/v8-goes-brrrrrr/images/sha256-706ba408ecf8d24cfc12a9091713006eca1c9ea5284a5cec079a383965f28363?context=explore

I suspect the one that finishes last is overwriting the first one, in CI

[Williangalvani]

@patrickelectric thoughts?

The issue here is that we cant do the --output line for two different images at the same time.

I think we could maybe do something like a .join() somewhere. or maybe we can use --output for two lines, but I couldn't find how to do it.

[Williangalvani]

nevermind me, it seems to be possible, let me troubleshoot it a bit further

[patrickelectric]

You can use a matrix and the name of the architecture in the artifact

[Williangalvani]

architecture

using a matrix causes 2 independent pushes to docker hub, where the latest one overwrites the first one

[patrickelectric]

architecture

using a matrix causes 2 independent pushes to docker hub, where the latest one overwrites the first one

ouch, we can build both together and each individually for the artifacts, it should use the cache from both builds and just create it for us.

[Williangalvani]

architecture

using a matrix causes 2 independent pushes to docker hub, where the latest one overwrites the first one

ouch, we can build both together and each individually for the artifacts, it should use the cache from both builds and just create it for us.

That is what the current change does. apparently we could use the "tar" output, but that doesn't seem to be "docker image specification compliant"

[patrickelectric]

I did some attempts to parallelize it but not ended well, I did updates and now appears to be fine.

[patrickelectric]

Be free to merge.