[cloud-sig] Issue #138: Produce updated cloud base images monthly

2017-05-23 Thread Dusty Mabe
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

[atomic-wg] Issue #277: Enforce ENV usage as a requirement for release label

2017-05-23 Thread Adam Miller
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

Re: Fedora Atomic Host Two Week Release Announcement

2017-05-23 Thread Dusty Mabe
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

[fedora-atomic] PR #60: manifest: Remove plymouth

2017-05-23 Thread Dusty Mabe
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

[fedora-atomic] PR #60: manifest: Remove plymouth

2017-05-23 Thread Colin Walters
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

[fedora-atomic] PR #60: manifest: Remove plymouth

2017-05-23 Thread Dennis Gilmore
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

[fedora-atomic] PR #60: manifest: Remove plymouth

2017-05-23 Thread Colin Walters
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

Re: Announce: Fedora Layered Image Release

2017-05-23 Thread Adam Miller
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 >>

Re: Announce: Fedora Layered Image Release

2017-05-23 Thread Jan Pazdziora
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

[atomic-wg] Issue #276: Set architecture label in the base container image

2017-05-23 Thread Honza Horak
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

[atomic-wg] Issue #249: The build system should provide an automatically populated VERSION label

2017-05-23 Thread Honza Horak
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