On Wednesday, 6 March 2019 12:50:54 PM AEDT Arnaud Rebillout wrote: > **Solution 1** > [...] > One is to patch docker, and fix their code so that it can handle various > runc version outputs.
I prefer this solution. > **Solution 2** > > The other way is to modify the runc build so that we include the git > commit. I've pushed such a change on a branch at: > > https://salsa.debian.org/go-team/packages/runc/commit/033a60b549b0935861c92 > bf4e5118d03ef443a8f > > It's actually not that bad, no patch involved, it's really just adding > ldflags. The only downside I see is that there's an additional step when > a maintainer wants to release a new upstream version: he has to look for > the corresponding commit and add it to the file > `debian/upstream-version-gitcommits`. I provided a helper script to do > that, so it's really a small overhead. This is not such a small and definitely undesirable overhead. Its purpose is unclear, it requires manual step and sure enough it will be forgotten. Moreover it aims at the problem in another package. It is not runc's job to meet Docker expectations. Also commit ID is probably useless anyway since we should attempt to always shipped a tagged (pre-)release. Plus we have patches that make commit ID even more irrelevant. Docker problem should be fixed in Docker. And clearly it is a Docker's problem to expect a very particular (bundled) runc (for no good reason), and forever whine into logs about not having that... -- All the best, Dmitry Smirnov. --- If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -- George Orwell
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
