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.

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

Don't include RHEL7 tasks if using Atomic #27

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 17, 2015
Merged

Conversation

miabbott
Copy link
Contributor

Since RHEL Atomic has all the necessary bits installed by default, it is
not necessary for the host to register via 'subman' or include the Extra
repos.

Signed-off-by: Micah Abbott miabbott@redhat.com

Since RHEL Atomic has all the necessary bits installed by default, it is
not necessary for the host to register via 'subman' or include the Extra
repos.

Signed-off-by: Micah Abbott <miabbott@redhat.com>
@eparis
Copy link
Owner

eparis commented Jun 17, 2015

I'm only so so on this, i'll take it, but it does mean you system can't use atomic host update...

eparis added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 17, 2015
Don't include RHEL7 tasks if using Atomic
@eparis eparis merged commit 17f98ed into eparis:master Jun 17, 2015
@miabbott
Copy link
Contributor Author

@eparis I was looking to see if atomic host update was ever called as part of the playbook and didn't find any instance, so here we are. Even though this has already been merged (you are fast!), I'm not married to it, so it can be changed/reverted later.

@eparis
Copy link
Owner

eparis commented Jun 17, 2015

it really out to be step 1 probably, the same way I update all other other 'relevant' components. but you're right, this change didn't 'break' anything.

@cgwalters
Copy link
Contributor

See also #20

@cgwalters
Copy link
Contributor

(And the still-open PR #21 that addresses it)

@eparis
Copy link
Owner

eparis commented Jun 17, 2015

mercy mercy.

if you rebase, i'll merge.

@miabbott
Copy link
Contributor Author

PR #21 seems to satisfy everyone's gripes. 👍

@eparis
Copy link
Owner

eparis commented Jun 18, 2015

but pr #21 requires a rebase

@miabbott
Copy link
Contributor Author

Right, I guess my statement should be "PR #21 with a rebase seems to satisfy everyone's gripes"

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants