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

build: libyaml in bundled deps #1252

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jul 16, 2020

Conversation

fntlnz
Copy link
Contributor

@fntlnz fntlnz commented Jun 9, 2020

Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Fontana lo@linux.com

What type of PR is this?

/kind feature

Any specific area of the project related to this PR?

/area build

What this PR does / why we need it:

There's no reason we rely on system libyaml when we release since it doesn't add many MB to the build and doesn't require a long time to build either.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?:

new: libyaml is now bundled in the release process. Users can now avoid installing libyaml directly when getting Falco from the official release.

@fntlnz
Copy link
Contributor Author

fntlnz commented Jun 9, 2020

/hold

This needs more testing with the packages to avoid breaking the release.

@fntlnz
Copy link
Contributor Author

fntlnz commented Jun 9, 2020

We also probably want to remove libyaml from the builder docker image

@leogr
Copy link
Member

leogr commented Jun 9, 2020

We also probably want to remove libyaml from the builder docker image

👍
I can take care of that.

@leogr leogr added this to the 0.24.0 milestone Jun 17, 2020
Copy link
Member

@leogr leogr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Overall SGTM.

Please note that I have removed the dep from builder, but:

  • the falcosecurity/builder image needs to be manually pushed (just a reminder)
  • by removing libyaml-0-2 from the builder, we also are removing the ability to build old Falco versions, do we need to maintain that backward compatibility? I don't think so
  • I have tested the flow, and it seems to work, but I will check it again
  • docker/local still use this dep, but since the docker/local seems to be not used I would take of that in separate PR

docker/builder/Dockerfile Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Fontana <lo@linux.com>
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Fontana <lo@linux.com>
Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Fontana <lo@linux.com>
Copy link
Member

@leogr leogr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

@poiana
Copy link

poiana commented Jul 14, 2020

LGTM label has been added.

Git tree hash: e91c408eb79c72090cbe5e336a64525cf5d47c7d

Copy link
Member

@leodido leodido left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is great work as usual!

Anyways, to avoid risky changes the day before of a release I'd propose to move this to 0.25.0

@poiana
Copy link

poiana commented Jul 15, 2020

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: leodido, leogr

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

@fntlnz
Copy link
Contributor Author

fntlnz commented Jul 15, 2020

/milestone 0.25.0

@poiana poiana modified the milestones: 0.24.0, 0.25.0 Jul 15, 2020
@fntlnz
Copy link
Contributor Author

fntlnz commented Jul 16, 2020

/hold cancel

@poiana poiana merged commit 38009f2 into falcosecurity:master Jul 16, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants