-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.4k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fix CI #12759
Fix CI #12759
Conversation
@containers/podman-maintainers PTAL |
# Force a crun version that has this fix: https://github.com/containers/crun/pull/819 | ||
# FIXME: Remove once a fixed crun made its way into Fedora | ||
if test "$OS_RELEASE_VER" == "35"; then | ||
yum upgrade -y https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/684/80280684/crun-1.3-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So, is the problem that this version has been wiped from mirrors? If so, does this actually do what you think it does? Since the CI VMs are (presumably) static, won't this just leave them with a very-old (pre-1.3.2) version of crun?
Let's see what CI does, but my gut is telling me that we should maybe, instead of deleting this block, s/1.3-2/1.4-1/
at least until @cevich returns from PTO
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Followup: yeah, package_versions is showing crun-1.3-1
, which is presumably the problem that the lines above were trying to fix. I think that, until the CI VMs get rebuilt, the solution needs to be s/1.3-2/1.4-1/
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can we just do a yum update crun?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, I think that would be even better. Good thinking, and I'm sorry for not stepping back to suggest that. Juggling too many things this morning!
crun should be available in f35. [ NO NEW TESTS NEEDED] Signed-off-by: Daniel J Walsh <[email protected]>
LGTM whenever tests go green |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
/lgtm
/hold
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: giuseppe, rhatdan The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
/hold cancel |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
Specifically, this brings in `crun 1.4-1` allowing removal of a temporary workaround. Ref: containers#12759 Signed-off-by: Chris Evich <[email protected]>
crun should be available in f35.
[ NO NEW TESTS NEEDED]
Signed-off-by: Daniel J Walsh [email protected]