-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6.5k
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 hash-values for runc v1.1.0 #8447
add hash-values for runc v1.1.0 #8447
Conversation
Hi @Payback159. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
/ok-to-test |
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.
@Payback159 Thanks
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: floryut, Payback159 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 |
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
What this PR does / why we need it:
Adds the hash values for upstream runc v1.1.0 version.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
As mentioned in #8391, I was able to do an installation on arm64 before Kubespray v2.18. After pivoting to the upstream releases of runc (under Kubespray v2.18), I could only install a runnable cluster on arm64 hardware with runc v1.1.0-rc.1.
As of today, runc upstream v1.1.0 has been released and this PR should support the use of v1.1.0 on both amd64 and arm64, and thus an installation on multi-arch.
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: