utils: kata-manager: Allow installing kata from a given tarball #8439
Conversation
fidencio
force-pushed
the
topic/kata-manager-install-a-given-kata-tarball
branch
from
1530b26
to
9f09f20
Compare
|
@jodh-intel, all the comments have been addressed, thanks! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @fidencio - tests fine but one nit you might want to look at. Overall...
lgtm
With this change, we give the users the change to try kata-containers with their own pre-built tarball. This will become very useful in the CI context, as we won't be downloading a specific version of kata-containers, but rather installing whatever was built in previous steps of the CI pipeline. Fixes: kata-containers#8438 Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
This was added as part of d4d65be, but install_kata has never actually used the passed enable_debug var. With this in mind, let's just remove it. Signed-off-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano.fidencio@intel.com>
fidencio
force-pushed
the
topic/kata-manager-install-a-given-kata-tarball
branch
from
9f09f20
to
1699b84
Compare
|
/test |
|
/test-arm-unit |
|
Interesting I never used the kata-manager.sh. Has it always been a first class citizen and I didn't know? or are you perhaps trying to bring it back to life? |
It existed but I'd say it was never a first class citizen. My plan, together with @jodh-intel, is to:
But there's still work to be done on this front. :-) |
|
@wainersm - It's been used for the "Install a complete Kata system with a single command" use-case for a few years now. See https://github.com/kata-containers/kata-containers/tree/main/docs/install#automatic-installation. |
With this change, we give the users the change to try kata-containers with their own pre-built tarball.
This will become very useful in the CI context, as we won't be downloading a specific version of kata-containers, but rather installing whatever was built in previous steps of the CI pipeline.
Fixes: #8438