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

[skip-ci] Packit: switch to EPEL instead of centos-stream+epel-next #22432

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 19, 2024
Merged

[skip-ci] Packit: switch to EPEL instead of centos-stream+epel-next #22432

merged 1 commit into from
Apr 19, 2024

Conversation

lsm5
Copy link
Member

@lsm5 lsm5 commented Apr 18, 2024

  • EPEL is the recommended target for further testing with rpm builds.
  • Fix EL9 builds.
  • Do not change c8s for now as it will be removed soon anyway.

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

None

@lsm5
[skip-ci] Packit: switch to EPEL instead of centos-stream+epel-next
eacc3f0 
- EPEL is the recommended target for further testing with rpm builds.
- Fix EL9 builds.
- Do not change c8s for now as it will be removed soon anyway.

Signed-off-by: Lokesh Mandvekar <lsm5@redhat.com>
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. release-note-none labels Apr 18, 2024
@openshift-ci OpenShift CI
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Apr 18, 2024

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: lsm5

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 Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Apr 18, 2024
@lsm5
Copy link
Member Author

lsm5 commented Apr 18, 2024

@containers/podman-maintainers PTAL.

The centos-stream+epel-next-9 builds have been failing on recent PRs because of undefined: ecdsa.HashSign which I suspect is an issue with the golang compiler that ended up in that environment. Anyway, epel-9* would be the right job environment to use if we want to add TMT tests and such, so this change would be required anyway.

@lsm5 lsm5 marked this pull request as ready for review April 18, 2024 19:30
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Apr 18, 2024
@saschagrunert saschagrunert mentioned this pull request Apr 19, 2024
Merged
@Luap99
Copy link
Member

Luap99 commented Apr 19, 2024

The centos-stream+epel-next-9 builds have been failing on recent PRs because of undefined: ecdsa.HashSign which I suspect is an issue with the golang compiler that ended up in that environment. Anyway, epel-9* would be the right job environment to use if we want to add TMT tests and such, so this change would be required anyway.

yes see containers/skopeo#2297 (comment) and containers/skopeo#2305

Luap99
Luap99 reviewed Apr 19, 2024
View reviewed changes
.packit.yaml
Comment on lines +50 to +51
- epel-9-x86_64
- epel-9-aarch64
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

should the epel-next-8 above also changed?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We will be removing all el8 stuff once centos8 stream goes EOL end of next month, so let's leave it as is for now.

@Luap99
Copy link
Member

Luap99 commented Apr 19, 2024

/lgtm
/hold

Feel free to remove the hold as you like.

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Apr 19, 2024
@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Apr 19, 2024
@lsm5
Copy link
Member Author

lsm5 commented Apr 19, 2024

/hold cancel

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot removed the do-not-merge/hold Indicates that a PR should not merge because someone has issued a /hold command. label Apr 19, 2024
@openshift-merge-bot openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit 6b41fa5 into containers:main Apr 19, 2024
92 checks passed
@lsm5 lsm5 deleted the packit-switch-targets branch April 19, 2024 12:31
nalind added a commit to nalind/buildah that referenced this pull request Apr 19, 2024
@nalind
Switch packit configuration to use epel-9-$arch ...
01e2624 
instead of centos-stream+epel-next-9-$arch, mirroring a change which was
just made in containers/podman#22432

Signed-off-by: Nalin Dahyabhai <nalin@redhat.com>
@nalind nalind mentioned this pull request Apr 19, 2024
Merged
@lsm5 lsm5 mentioned this pull request Apr 22, 2024
Merged
nalind added a commit to nalind/buildah that referenced this pull request Apr 22, 2024
@nalind
Switch packit configuration to use epel-9-$arch ...
f86c274 
instead of centos-stream+epel-next-9-$arch, mirroring a change which was
just made in containers/podman#22432

Signed-off-by: Nalin Dahyabhai <nalin@redhat.com>
@stale-locking-app stale-locking-app bot added the locked - please file new issue/PR Assist humans wanting to comment on an old issue or PR with locked comments. label Jul 19, 2024
@stale-locking-app stale-locking-app bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Jul 19, 2024
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Reviewers

@Luap99 Luap99 Luap99 left review comments

Assignees

@Luap99 Luap99

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. release-note-none
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@lsm5 @Luap99