Build x86-64_musl config on alpine builder

[veloman-yunkan]

Currently x86-64_musl jobs in our CI/CD are run on Ubuntu builders using cross-compilation. They should run on an alpine builder instead.

[kelson42]

@veloman-yunkan ... and we should not need any cross compilation there as we have not arm ARM runners, see https://github.blog/news-insights/product-news/arm64-on-github-actions-powering-faster-more-efficient-build-systems/

[veloman-yunkan]

It looks like I am ready to submit a PR for building x86-64_musl on alpine. The question is whether we want to keep for a while the cross-compiling setup on jammy and eliminate it after the new alpine builder proves to be working, or we replace jammy with alpine right away?

[kelson42]

@veloman-yunkan Two questions:

• Why should we keep cross compilation on jammy?
• Do we follow the same native path for arm (native arm base alpine container)?

[veloman-yunkan]

• Why should we keep cross compilation on jammy?

Such a gradual transition (introducing a new implementation that temporarily coexists with the old implementation) is a form of defense against breaking things and upsetting customers who depended on the old implementation without giving them time to adapt. Are there any users of our musl CI worklows who can validate that the new builds are equivalent to the old ones with respect to the goals that those jobs are run for?

• Do we follow the same native path for arm (native arm base alpine container)?

Frankly, I don't quite understand this question.

[kelson42]

• Why should we keep cross compilation on jammy?

Such a gradual transition (introducing a new implementation that temporarily coexists with the old implementation) is a form of defense against breaking things and upsetting customers who depended on the old implementation without giving them time to adapt. Are there any users of our musl CI worklows who can validate that the new builds are equivalent to the old ones with respect to the goals that those jobs are run for?

OK, but then we shoukd open an issue to clean the deprecated stuff afterward

• Do we follow the same native path for arm (native arm base alpine container)?

Frankly, I don't quite understand this question.

Can we compile amr64_musl in an amr64 alpine container please?