dustymabe added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
@jdoss - the bad news is that it's unfortunately quite complicated. the good
news is that releng has quite a few tools for automating things and we just
need to put magic pixie dust in a few places and a lot of stuff will happen
maxamillion reported a new issue against the project: `atomic-wg` that you are
following:
``
Currently the [Container Guidelines on LABELS
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Container:Guidelines#LABELS] *recommend* the use
of `ENV` declarations for the `release` but it appears as though this
On 05/23/2017 12:28 PM, nore...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
>
> A new Fedora Atomic Host update is available via an OSTree commit:
>
> Commit: cdd359911de49f3a8199ffd41a9894019562001d6cf9be66e1894c31b6fa1c66
> Version: 25.127
>
>
> Existing systems can be upgraded in place via e.g. `atomic host
dustymabe commented on the pull-request: `manifest: Remove plymouth` that you
are following:
``
> I meant this PR to be for discussion not merge, sorry should have mentioned
> that. It's OK though; we can test the LUKS path and if things don't work,
> back it out.
I use LUKS without rhgb on
walters commented on the pull-request: `manifest: Remove plymouth` that you are
following:
``
This originated in https://pagure.io/fedora-kickstarts/pull-request/231
I meant this PR to be for discussion not merge, sorry should have mentioned
that. It's OK though; we can test the LUKS path and
ausil merged a pull-request against the project: `fedora-atomic` that you are
following.
Merged pull-request:
``
manifest: Remove plymouth
``
https://pagure.io/fedora-atomic/pull-request/60
___
cloud mailing list -- cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
walters opened a new pull-request against the project: `fedora-atomic` that you
are following:
``
manifest: Remove plymouth
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/fedora-atomic/pull-request/60
___
cloud mailing
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Jan Pazdziora wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:45:32PM -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
>> >
>> > Is the infrastructure now ready for the respin?
>>
>> It appears the builds are still failing because of
>>
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:45:32PM -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
> >
> > Is the infrastructure now ready for the respin?
>
> It appears the builds are still failing because of
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=144
The bugzilla was addressed -- can we give
hhorak reported a new issue against the project: `atomic-wg` that you are
following:
``
I believe that setting the architecture label in every layered Dockerfile is
not necessary, it might be even problematic once we'll have containers on
non-intel platforms, because then we'd need to either
hhorak added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
For images like mariadb, I'd like to set the version to major version (e.g.
10.1), which is what users care (take a look how tags look like on docker hub).
Such major version is different than RPM version (e.g. 10.1.23) and also does
11 matches
Mail list logo