Skip to content

Add Fedora-36 native compile #256

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
openshift-merge-robot merged 1 commit into from
Mar 14, 2022
Merged

Add Fedora-36 native compile #256

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
11 changes: 11 additions & 0 deletions .cirrus.yml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -155,6 +155,16 @@ meta_task:
clone_script: &noop mkdir -p $CIRRUS_WORKING_DIR # source not needed
script: /usr/local/bin/entrypoint.sh

fedora36_build_task:
alias: fedora36_build
depends_on:
- "build"
container:
cpu: 2
memory: 2
image: quay.io/libpod/fedora36rust
Copy link
Member

@edsantiago edsantiago Mar 14, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

II get super nervous around :latest, and even more so when it's in an environment that needs to be maintained over time. Could I humbly request that you tag this image (in quay) with a suitable YYYYMMDD and use that tag here?

Copy link
Member Author

@baude baude Mar 14, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

what is to be nervous about? this is supposed to mimic actual distribution builds so we don't incur problems when it comes to packaging. should it not be latest? that is the one that gets update. tell me more

Copy link
Member

@edsantiago edsantiago Mar 14, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

that is the one that gets update

And that's the crux. Said updates are out-of-band wrt the code that relies on it (here in CI). We've seen this happen several times: foo.image:latest gets updated, and a few days later something breaks on a maintenance branch because that update changed a behavior that nobody even knew the old branch relied on. See, e.g., containers/podman#12343

Copy link
Member Author

@baude baude Mar 14, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we actually want that in the case though, no? If the distribution ships an updated cargo, then we want to be testing with that on all branches, as we are pegged to the distribution level here; not the cargo version. What so you?

Copy link
Member

@edsantiago edsantiago Mar 14, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It's a tradeoff. It's one that we make often, and sometimes it's the right call, sometimes it's not.

I'm not blocking the PR, merely calling attention to it. If this is a deliberate and well-thought-out choice, then so be it. But could I at least request that you give the existing image a secondary descriptive tag? That way if/when there's a SNAFU with an image upgrade, we can do an emergency revert.

script:
- cargo build

success_task:
name: "Total success"
Expand All @@ -167,6 +177,7 @@ success_task:
- "unit"
- "integration"
- "meta"
- "fedora36_build"
env:
CIRRUS_SHELL: "/bin/sh"
clone_script: *noop
Expand Down