Hej,
at the moment there is a PR[1] open on foreman-docker to set a HTTP proxy
for requests to registries.
The PR allows to set a HTTP proxy on the HTTP client, in this case deep
down Excon, only for registry requests.
A HTTP proxy won't be set on requests if a `HTTP_PROXY` environment
Hello
while it would made the packaging easier I don't think it's a very good
approach. If there's some security issue found in one of deps, we'd need to
build new version of the whole stack because of that. Btw on rpm based systems
we use isolated ruby through software collection so it should
Hi all,
Since all our developers are
*busy having cocktails^W^W^W
*sleeping off an Easter Chocolate coma^W^W^W^W^W
*really really busy with 1.15 testing :P
I've decided to change today's community demo to an Ask Me Anything.
I'll chair it, and I'll try to get some other notable people on the
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 03:22:24PM -0700, jake.plimack via foreman-dev wrote:
> would it be possible to move towards using omnibus packing for theforeman?
I'm strongly against this for a broad variety of reasons. I think the
whole omnibus approach is very wrong and Puppet's move to AIO
As a dev I am curious how this is handled in our code. Does every usage of
RestClient need to know about the existence of a proxy? Are there multiple
proxies for different aspects (eg. https://cdn.redhat.com vs.
https://myinternalserver.example.com)?
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Timo Goebel
would it be possible to move towards using omnibus packing for theforeman?
i would love it if TF was self-contained with its own ruby and gems in
/opt/foreman much like chef/sensu/etc do.
i have newer system-ruby on my machines than theforeman requires, so
self-containing all the deps seems
