Packit: initial enablement #30
Conversation
|
@jankaluza @Luap99 PTAL. |
mtrmac
left a comment
mtrmac
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just a brief skim, I don’t know what we want/need to do via Packit, and how/if at all it interacts with other downstream packaging.
| ensure pkg/config/containers.conf runtime \"crun\" | ||
| ensure pkg/config/containers.conf log_driver \"journald\" | ||
| ensure common/pkg/config/containers.conf runtime \"crun\" | ||
| ensure common/pkg/config/containers.conf log_driver \"journald\" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There was some … discussion in #4 about how packaging happens. Does this risk interfering with downstream RPMs?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This has been happening already in containers-common rpm that was done from the c/common repo and shipped to Fedora for quite sometime now. Only the path was updated to match monorepo. The final list of files installed is not being changed (after I remove the additional docs stuff that you commented about)
|
btw, The Common: Test is fixed in main, so rebase should help. |
lsm5
force-pushed
the
packit
branch
2 times, most recently
from
586f3b9 to
1e62679
Compare
|
Packit jobs failed. @containers/packit-build please check. |
|
Ready for review after addressing @mtrmac 's initial comments. |
Luap99
left a comment
Luap99
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you remove the common/.packit.yaml file then? I assume then git would show this file as rename which likely helps for reviewers.
Let me check. I think .packit.yaml is expected in top-level. |
Yes that is fine, what I am saying is you should remove |
Ah ok. My bad. Doing it. |
|
Done. Thanks, and sorry for my misread earlier. |
Signed-off-by: Lokesh Mandvekar <[email protected]>
Luap99
left a comment
Luap99
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, if the chnage is intentional. Though I don't really have tried to understand most of the changes.
| # Ignore CentOS Stream for now | ||
| - job: propose_downstream | ||
| trigger: release | ||
| trigger: ignore |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I assume that change is intentional?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes, this one is intentional. We're not doing centos stream official updates via packit atm.
4 participants
No description provided.