ocket8888 opened a new issue, #7301:
URL: https://github.com/apache/trafficcontrol/issues/7301

   ## This Bug Report affects these Traffic Control components:
   - CDN in a Box
   
   ## Current behavior:
   When running `make` in the CDN-in-a-Box directory, `make` will attempt to 
use the command
   
   ```bash
   docker run --name=ciab-get-$(BASE_IMAGE)-$(RHEL_VERSION)-arch 
$(BASE_IMAGE):$(RHEL_VERSION) rpm --eval %_arch
   ```
   
   to find out the machine's architecture. This works fine - the first time. 
After that, since it doesn't clean up the container afterwards, future `make` 
runs will fail to set the build architecture with this error:
   
   ```
   docker: Error response from daemon: Conflict. The container name 
"/ciab-get-rockylinux-8-arch" is already in use by container 
"fd89b4248a7ab0ed475f554e2eb24028df3ab1d4d892fcad06dfc250dd40385e". You have to 
remove (or rename) that container to be able to reuse that name.
   See 'docker run --help'.
   ```
   
   Unfortunately, `shell` directives exiting with failure codes does not cause 
`make` (or at least GNU `make`) to exit with a failure code immediately, 
instead it will attempt to construct each RPM, which will each fail in what is 
essentially a re-occurrence of #7251.
   
   
   ## Expected behavior:
   The comment line above the line that sets the build architecture reads
   
   > _"no `--rm` on the docker command to speed up reuse for shell completion"_
   
   so it seems the intended behavior is to re-use existing containers. It'd be 
much easier to simply add `--rm` so that `make` will clean up after itself, but 
if possible the expected behavior is to re-use existing containers.
   
   
   ## Steps to reproduce:
   1. `make`
   2. `make` again
   
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to