On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 10:06 -0400, Robert Rati wrote:
I've reproduced this issue pretty easily. We have symlinks in
/etc/systemd/system that point to common unit files on an NFS share.
The unit files in the NFS share are usable and functioning on 7.1.0.
Then I do:
ostree remote add
So I haven't dug into this, might be wasting people's time, but
upstream kube ansible has some 'pre-ansible' tasks to get Rawhide boxes
functional with ansible [1]. The bare minimum appears (related to
atomic) to be python2 and libselinux-python.
I know we added python2 by hand, just want to ask
Sadly, no, the only step you missed was disabling SELinux.
https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/kubernetes/issues/2630
Is where Paul is tracking his work around these problems.
On Fri, 2015-07-17 at 09:50 +0200, Tobias Florek wrote:
Hi,
using the following atomic host version I can't
It would make sense if rpm-ostreed ran as non init_t and if that type
have MAC_ADMIN. Not much we that can be done to fix it now, but we
could fix policy for 24->25...
-Eric
On Wed, 2016-06-22 at 10:56 -0400, Micah Abbott wrote:
> On 06/22/2016 09:34 AM, Muayyad AlSadi wrote:
> > now, it gave me
On Mon, 2016-03-28 at 10:54 -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> Well a couple of points, we are currently blocked from pushing
> docker-1.10 into fedora 23, because
> it will break k8s, and it looks like we could have the same problem
> when
> we go to ship docker-1.10
> into rhel in May.If we
On Mon, 2016-03-28 at 09:27 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In some of my use cases I have OpenShift/Kubernetes clusters that are
> primarily certified on 1.9, and so I'd like to keep using that. But
> it'd be useful to be able to quickly try out 1.10 on some of my
> nodes, or in cases
On Tue, 2017-01-17 at 13:42 -0500, Dusty Mabe wrote:
> There are a few bugs that are blocking 2wk release.
>
> - one with the kernel that causes kube dns to not work
> * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1414068
> - one with kube that causes selinux breakage
> *
On Mon, 2017-03-06 at 21:22 -0500, Clayton Coleman wrote:
> They'd be really helpful for cases where you don't want full blown
> systemd, but want a long running container that needs to reap
> processes. I don't know that one or the other matters, I have a
> slight bias for dumb-init in terms of
I question if we need firewalld in atomic. It could be a regular
container. Or a system container if we need it running before docker.
No?
Not sure who to ask to look at actually doing it. But yes, I think
everyone who has software doing automated updating of iptables rules
wants something like
