Skip to content
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 REMOTETAGS #6230

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 15, 2020
Merged

Fix REMOTETAGS #6230

merged 1 commit into from
May 15, 2020

Conversation

rhatdan
Copy link
Member

@rhatdan rhatdan commented May 14, 2020

Handle REMOTETAGS the same way for all remote commands.

This fixes issues where remote commands are not building correctly on rhel7 and centos7 systems.

Signed-off-by: Daniel J Walsh [email protected]

Handle REMOTETAGS the same way for all remote commands.

This fixes issues where remote commands are not building correctly on rhel7 and centos7 systems.

Signed-off-by: Daniel J Walsh <[email protected]>
@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ ETCDIR ?= /etc
TMPFILESDIR ?= ${PREFIX}/lib/tmpfiles.d
SYSTEMDDIR ?= ${PREFIX}/lib/systemd/system
USERSYSTEMDDIR ?= ${PREFIX}/lib/systemd/user
REMOTETAGS := !ABISupport remoteclient exclude_graphdriver_btrfs btrfs_noversion exclude_graphdriver_devicemapper containers_image_openpgp
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we use the hack/ scripts to determine whether btrfs, seccomp, etc are included?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No, We don't want this code compiled into remoteclient. In a perfect world we would not hit this. The btrfs and devicemapper flags are for containers/image and containers/storage and prevent btrfs and devicemapper from being compiled into the client.

@TomSweeneyRedHat
Copy link
Member

LGTM assuming happy tests

@mheon mheon added approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. labels May 15, 2020
@mheon
Copy link
Member

mheon commented May 15, 2020

Manually setting hold and LGTM

@rhatdan
Copy link
Member Author

rhatdan commented May 15, 2020

/hold cancel

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label May 15, 2020
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit c61a45c into containers:master May 15, 2020
@github-actions github-actions bot added the locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments. label Sep 25, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 25, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants