enable support for ppc64le architecture

[Prajyot-Parab]

Signed-off-by: Prajyot Parab Prajyot.Parab@ibm.com

Fixes #1493

[skriss]

@Prajyot-Parab are you intending for us to publish ppc64le docker images? It looks like this PR as-is will publish the ppc64le binaries for releases on GitHub, but won't publish the docker images, just adds support for building them -- this is fine with me, just checking on what your intention is.

If you are looking for us to publish images, we might want to consider publishing a multi-arch image using fat manifests, but we can discuss further.

[Prajyot-Parab]

@Prajyot-Parab are you intending for us to publish ppc64le docker images? It looks like this PR as-is will publish the ppc64le binaries for releases on GitHub, but won't publish the docker images, just adds support for building them -- this is fine with me, just checking on what your intention is.

If you are looking for us to publish images, we might want to consider publishing a multi-arch image using fat manifests, but we can discuss further.

@skriss getting velero images published for the ppc64le arch would be really helpful. Let me know your thoughts on the same.

[clnperez]

We'd love to have the fat manifest support and can help with that if needed. Maybe in a separate PR?

[jwcroppe]

@skriss Following up from @clnperez's and @Prajyot-Parab's previous comments - what do you see as next steps? Merge this and then have a separate PR for handling the Docker images and fat manifest, or is there another route we should take?

[jwcroppe]

@skriss Whenever you get a moment, just a quick follow up regarding your thoughts on the above proposal? Thanks in advance!

[skriss]

what do you see as next steps? Merge this and then have a separate PR for handling the Docker images and fat manifest, or is there another route we should take?

That works for me. I'll take another look through this one as-is shortly.

[skriss]

Few minor comments but mostly looks good.

[skriss]

LGTM! @nrb or @carlisia please take one more look.