create official busybox variant for ARM about busybox HOT 4 CLOSED

@Govinda-Fichtner Yeah integration test demands some specific configurations for busybox image. I think you should fork https://github.com/docker-library/busybox , and have your own ubuntu/Dockerfile.builder.armhf and upstream/Dockerfile.builder.armhf.

I worked on this for arm64, but got some problems for upstream/Dockerfile.builder.aarch64, anyway @tianon seems toke over and fixed it, now we have https://hub.docker.com/r/aarch64/busybox/ (thanks @tianon , though I don't know how he built it yet, any source files we can see?).

from busybox.

Sorry didn't check your link, you seems already did it based on the official source code. Then I think we should have architecture specific dockerfiles in https://github.com/docker-library/busybox as we have in Docker, @tianon WDYT?

from busybox.

The way I'd done it was somewhat manual, but I've finally got it fixed so that it happens automatically from the existing source here (especially thanks to the refactoring in #7); see https://github.com/tianon/jenkins-groovy/blob/master/dsl/docker-multiarch/images/busybox.groovy for the current modifications/build script (and docker-library/gcc#25 for some additional discussion of why I'd rather not commit to completely separate, explicit "multiarch" Dockerfiles just yet).

from busybox.

I'm going to close this now given the existence of https://hub.docker.com/r/armhf/busybox/, https://hub.docker.com/r/armel/busybox/, and even https://hub.docker.com/r/aarch64/busybox/. 👍

from busybox.