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.

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

Jump to bottom

CI VMs: bump f40 -> f41 #5820

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Nov 7, 2024
Merged

CI VMs: bump f40 -> f41 #5820

merged 2 commits into from
Nov 7, 2024

Conversation

edsantiago
Copy link
Member

Images built in containers/automation_images#392

Signed-off-by: Ed Santiago [email protected]

None

@edsantiago edsantiago mentioned this pull request Nov 6, 2024
Merged
@Luap99
Copy link
Member

Luap99 commented Nov 7, 2024

We will need to update the linter golangci-lint needs to be > 1.60 to work on go 1.23 AFAICT

@Luap99
Copy link
Member

Luap99 commented Nov 7, 2024

try picking #5821 in here

@edsantiago
Copy link
Member Author

ulimits failing. Probably the same thing as containers/podman#24335 but not caught because we don't run buildah tests on rawhide.

@Luap99
Copy link
Member

Luap99 commented Nov 7, 2024

ulimits failing. Probably the same thing as containers/podman#24335 but not caught because we don't run buildah tests on rawhide.

The test seem to call podman to figure out the limit podman uses. IMO this sounds super wrong, buildah cannot depend on the host podman version and expect things to never change... added in 79fb3c2

What we could test on podman is that podman run/build use the same limits which make sense to me but testing in buildah with a unknown host binary cannot work

@edsantiago
CI VMs: bump f40 -> f41
4703b5b 
Images built in containers/automation_images#392

Signed-off-by: Ed Santiago <[email protected]>
@edsantiago
tests: skip two ulimit tests
e395040 
They compare buildah-bud against podman-run, which breaks if
/usr/bin/podman changes its ulimits, as happened recently
in podman PR 24335.

Signed-off-by: Ed Santiago <[email protected]>
Luap99
Luap99 approved these changes Nov 7, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@Luap99 Luap99 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@rhatdan
Copy link
Member

rhatdan commented Nov 7, 2024

/approve
/lgtm

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm label Nov 7, 2024
@openshift-ci OpenShift CI
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Nov 7, 2024

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: edsantiago, Luap99, 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 /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the approved label Nov 7, 2024
@openshift-merge-bot openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit 6637987 into containers:main Nov 7, 2024
33 checks passed
@edsantiago edsantiago deleted the f41 branch November 11, 2024 13:13
@stale-locking-app stale-locking-app bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Feb 10, 2025
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Reviewers

@Luap99 Luap99 Luap99 approved these changes

Assignees

@rhatdan rhatdan

Labels
approved lgtm locked - please file new issue/PR
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@edsantiago @Luap99 @rhatdan