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

cirrus: remove static_build #3680

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 16, 2021

Conversation

flouthoc
Copy link
Collaborator

@flouthoc flouthoc commented Dec 15, 2021

In order to keep CI maintenance simple and not to deal with very frequent nix hiccups consensus
was made to remove static_build from CI.

Read more here: #3679


Before deciding to remove static_build we tried things below:

It seems nixos/nix:latest expects nixbld user to be added and specified in
build-users-group but this should be only needed for multi-user
mode.

Hence I suspect latest push has a regression. Lock the nix to last working
image.

Following PR fixes regression for artifacts in CI

See: containers/crun#812
And discussion here: #3679 (comment)

@flouthoc
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@edsantiago @cevich Just checking if static build works with last stable version just like crun. If it fails then i will remove this from CI like #3679 (comment) as @edsantiago suggested.

@cevich
Copy link
Member

cevich commented Dec 15, 2021

Just checking if static build works with last stable version just like crun

IMHO, this will likely be a temporary fix at best. While it's slowed down recently, eventually crun will be updated and we'll be back in the same boat.

If it fails then i will remove this from CI

I'm okay with removing it now if that's easier & others agree. AFAIK the nix stuff isn't backed by anyone anymore, and so that begs the question if anybody actually cares about the CI result.

If we simply need a static binary artifact/test, it should be possible to do that using automation we're willing to own/maintain.

@TomSweeneyRedHat
Copy link
Member

@hswong3i PTAL

@hswong3i
Copy link
Collaborator

@saschagrunert PTAL

Remove `static_build` from ci as it is becoming hard to keep up with
`nix` hiccups in CI.

------
Before Deciding to remove static_build from CI we tried things below :
Things decided below worked but in order to keep maintaince simple
consensus was made to remove static_build. Read more here:
containers#3679

It seems nixos/nix:latest expects nixbld user to be added and specified in
build-users-group but this should be only needed for multi-user
mode.

Hence I suspect latest push has a regression. Lock the nix to last working
image.

[NO NEW TESTS NEEDED]

Signed-off-by: Aditya Rajan <arajan@redhat.com>
@flouthoc flouthoc changed the title static_build: lock nixos/nix version to last working release i.e 2.3.12 cirrus: remove static_build Dec 16, 2021
@flouthoc flouthoc requested a review from cevich December 16, 2021 09:30
@flouthoc
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@containers/podman-maintainers PTAL

Copy link
Member

@vrothberg vrothberg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

Copy link
Member

@giuseppe giuseppe left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

/lgtm

@openshift-ci
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Dec 16, 2021

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: flouthoc, giuseppe

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 lgtm label Dec 16, 2021
@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 862c20c into containers:main Dec 16, 2021
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 14, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

7 participants