Enable ppc64le build for test-tools

[kabhiibm]

This PR introduces ppc64le support for the test-tools image, a crucial step toward building and running KEDA on the ppc64le architecture.

Key Changes:

• Updated tools/Dockerfile to support ppc64le builds.
• Modified the Makefile to enable ppc64le architecture compatibility.

With these enhancements, the test-tools image can be successfully built and utilized for KEDA development on ppc64le.

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

This PR enables support for the ppc64le architecture in KEDA's test-tools image to expand platform compatibility for development and testing.

• Adds ppc64le architecture handling to the Dockerfile for Go, kubectl, and protobuf installations
• Updates the Makefile to include ppc64le in the supported build platforms
• Implements architecture-specific installation logic to handle different binary naming conventions

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 comment.

File	Description
tools/Dockerfile	Adds ppc64le architecture support with case statements for Go, kubectl, GitHub CLI, and protobuf installations
Makefile	Includes linux/ppc64le in the BUILD_PLATFORMS variable for multi-platform builds

---

_{Tip: Customize your code reviews with copilot-instructions.md. Create the file or learn how to get started.}

[Copilot]

The protobuf architecture name 'ppcle_64' appears to be incorrect. Based on the protobuf releases, the correct architecture name should be 'ppc_64' for ppc64le.

Suggested change

	"ppc64el" | "ppc64le") PROTOC_ARCH="ppcle_64" ;; \
	"ppc64el" | "ppc64le") PROTOC_ARCH="ppc_64" ;; \

[zroubalik]

Please double check this, it could be a halucination

[jkyros]

Definitely a hallucination if we check https://github.com/protocolbuffers/protobuf/releases/

e.g.
https://github.com/protocolbuffers/protobuf/releases/download/v34.0-rc1.1/protoc-34.0-rc-1-linux-ppcle_64.zip

[zroubalik]

why do we have have both *le and *el?

[jkyros]

debian uses ppc64el for their dpkg arch whereas it looks like everyone else uses ppc64le. I wouldn't think we'd need the or though unless this is future-proofing in the event we ever converted this to build in a non-debian image?

[jkyros]

@kabhiibm you still around for this one? I ran across it (hilariously) working with IBM testing this downstream on ppcle64 and we needed ppc builds of the test tools.

[prb112]

@jkyros ppcle64 ? ppc64le is common ppc64el is the alternative.

[kabhiibm]

@kabhiibm you still around for this one? I ran across it (hilariously) working with IBM testing this downstream on ppcle64 and we needed ppc builds of the test tools.

@jkyros Since the image uses ubuntu as base image on ppc64le arch and the packages which I found to install in the image is available with ppc64el suffix. So to overcome it I have provided both alternative in the case condition. @prb112 is right in his response:

@jkyros ppcle64 ? ppc64le is common ppc64el is the alternative.

Here is the arch command I have checked on our ubuntu system:

buntu@kumar-argo:~$ arch
ppc64le
ubuntu@kumar-argo:~$ dpkg --print-architecture
ppc64el
ubuntu@kumar-argo:~$

[jkyros]

@kabhiibm Right, right, we're all in agreement I think. I was just sloppy when I typed ppcle64 in my ping to you (that wasn't supposed to mean anything). 😅

Ubuntu is a debian derivative so my response to Zbynek was more or less to be taken as "It's weird, but debian just calls it something different than what everyone else does in their URLs"

So to overcome it I have provided both alternative in the case condition. @prb112 is right in his response:

But to Zbynek's question, I would expect dpkg --print-architecture to always return ppc64el because that's what debian/ubuntu calls it, right? Are you saying that you believe there are circumstances where dpkg --print-architecture can return ppc64le that would necessitate having both there in that "case in" statement?

[kabhiibm]

@jkyros .. I also haven't came across any situation where dpkg --print-architecture returned ppc64le in place of ppc64el. It shouldn't be possible.

I had included ppc64le for future reference if base image changes from ubuntu to some other image. It would require minimum change and to keep it readable for developer (from Power perspective).

We can remove the ppc64le in case in statement if it isn't needed for now and put a comment to consider ppc64el as Power.

[prb112]

Hey @kabhiibm can you update

test-tools/.github/workflows/pr.yml

Line 47 in 78ffe90

name: s390x

and add ppc64le

I'd recommend leaving the current approach you have for selecting/comparing arch. Or just adding a comment to avoid future regressions.