-
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
Add FreeBSD support for pkg/specgen/generate #15560
Conversation
The security features (selinux, apparmor, capabilities) are linux specific. [NO NEW TESTS NEEDED] Signed-off-by: Doug Rabson <[email protected]>
…d add stubs. Almost all of SpecGenToOCI deals with linux-specific aspects of the runtime spec. Rather than try to factor this out piecemeal, I think it is cleaner to move the whole function along with its implementation helper functions. This also meams we don't need non-linux stubs for functions called from oci_linux.go [NO NEW TESTS NEEDED] Signed-off-by: Doug Rabson <[email protected]>
… add stubs Everthing except for hostname management is linux-specific. [NO NEW TESTS NEEDED] Signed-off-by: Doug Rabson <[email protected]>
[NO NEW TESTS NEEDED] Signed-off-by: Doug Rabson <[email protected]>
LGTM |
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: dfr, 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 |
On the assumption that the single system test failure was a flake: |
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 cancel
This involved moving linux-specific code to per-platform files which also allowed some of the build stubs I added earlier to be removed. A baseline implementation of SpecGenToOCI was added which is enough to support running containers (which will be in a later and more complicated PR).
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?