Enable CI Support for ppc64le (IBM Power) Architecture

[sandeepgupta12]

Hi Team,

We’re reaching out to propose enabling CI support for the ppc64le (IBM Power) architecture in your repository, as part of a broader effort to ensure cross-platform compatibility in the scientific Python ecosystem.

We have started working on the KServe component for ppc64le, and as part of that effort we’d like to ensure upstream dependencies and integrations are well‑supported on the Power architecture.

We’re using a GitHub Actions (GHA)-based runner service provided and maintained by IBM to run jobs for the ppc64le architecture. This setup has already been successfully integrated into projects like:

✅ pyca/cryptography#13130

✅ numpy/numpy#29212

We’d like to propose enabling the IBM ppc64le GitHub Actions runner in this repository so CI jobs can run on ppc64le using existing workflows. This would help ensure continued compatibility for Power as we advance work on KServe and related components.

Key Benefits:
🔒 Ephemeral and secure runners, isolated per job

🛠️ Maintained by IBM, requires no setup effort from your side

🔁 Integrates with existing GitHub Actions workflows

📚 Technical documentation and usage details:
https://github.com/IBM/actionspz/tree/main/docs

We’re happy to assist with the setup or provide any additional details the team may need.

Thanks so much!

[seanses]

@rajatarya @Wauplin @XciD What do you think? Do we have customers on Power?

[Wauplin]

genuinely never got a feature request for that 🤷

[sandeepgupta12]

Thanks for the feedback.

As context, we're currently working on enabling ppc64le support for KServe and have already submitted PRs across several upstream dependencies. This repository is one of those dependencies, so we're working to ensure the full stack functions correctly on Power.
IBM's support goes beyond providing CI infrastructure. We'll actively monitor the ppc64le CI, investigate failures, and contribute fixes as needed, so the maintenance burden on project maintainers remains minimal.

From our side, ppc64le support (and eventually ppc64le wheels) would be valuable for downstream users. Enabling the IBM-managed runner is a low-overhead way to validate compatibility, and we're happy to help support and maintain this effort going forward.
If any ppc64le-specific issues come up, please feel free to tag me.