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

Docker socket doesn't have to be writeable to resolve container names #6508

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

tobiasmuehl
Copy link

Summary

Documentation tells users to bind docker socket writeable, although it doesn't seem necessary for docker container name resolution.

Component Name

Gitbook

Additional Information

Other users reporting success with this method can be found in this issue thread

@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLAassistant commented Jul 21, 2019

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

Copy link
Contributor

@joelhans joelhans left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

A few small changes requested.

packaging/docker/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
packaging/docker/README.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@joelhans
Copy link
Contributor

Also, let's consider how this connects to #6441. Working on the same part of the same file here.

@ViViDboarder
Copy link
Contributor

Also, let's consider how this connects to #6441. Working on the same part of the same file here.

Yea... My diff takes out the GID logic in the run script.

I had originally added some logic to just update the netdata UID and GID, but I ran into some issues. I can test this and try to add it back in.

@ViViDboarder
Copy link
Contributor

Ok. Got something workable based on what you have suggested. 👍

I'll try to roll this updated documentation into my diff.

tobiasmuehl and others added 2 commits July 23, 2019 17:52
Co-Authored-By: Joel Hans <joel.g.hans@gmail.com>
Co-Authored-By: Joel Hans <joel.g.hans@gmail.com>
@cakrit
Copy link
Contributor

cakrit commented Sep 20, 2019

Actually, this information already exists on the current version of the README. Apologies for the delay @tobiasmuehl !!!

@cakrit cakrit closed this Sep 20, 2019
@tobiasmuehl tobiasmuehl deleted the patch-1 branch September 23, 2019 12:14
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

6 participants