Re: [prometheus-developers] pkg-prometheus BSP tomorrow 28/1 21h UTC

That's great to hear :) Thank you for all the Debian packaging efforts! On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 9:23 PM Martina Ferrari wrote: > On 30/01/2021 21:55, Julius Volz wrote: > > I had to look up what "BSP" means :) For anyone else curious, although I > > realize I'm late: https://wiki.debian.org/BSP

Re: [prometheus-developers] pkg-prometheus BSP tomorrow 28/1 21h UTC

On 30/01/2021 21:55, Julius Volz wrote: I had to look up what "BSP" means :) For anyone else curious, although I realize I'm late: https://wiki.debian.org/BSP - Bug Squashing Party Oops! Sorry about that, I forgot it was Debian-slang :) Anyway, I am happy to

Re: [prometheus-developers] Prometheus

Dear Brian, Thank you so much for all your guidance, contributions and work you have done! I still remember when Julius announced to me so many years ago that there is the first external non-SoundCloud developer with an interest in the project. And you didn't just show an interest in using the -

Re: [prometheus-developers] Docker images from scratch

Proposal #4 also contains: gcr.io/distroless/static: ca-certificates A /etc/passwd entry for a root user A /tmp directory tzdata If exporters require cgo, there is also a version with: gcr.io/distroless/base: glibc libssl openssl On 31 Jan 17:32, Ben Kochie wrote:

Re: [prometheus-developers] Docker images from scratch

That's proposal #4. On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 5:31 PM Gabriel Cavalcante < gabriel.cavalcant...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is it possible to use the scratch image with Prometheus binary inside > only? That would reduce the surface entirely. > > On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 at 13:26 Julien Pivotto > wrote: > >>

[prometheus-developers] Re: Renaming the Prometheus repositories main branch

Hello, My plan is to proceed with prometheus/prometheus in the second half of February. I am basically waiting for the 2.25 release first. Then, the master branch would be renamed to main. BEFORE THE CHANGE: 1. An issue will be created in the github repo and "pinned", to better inform our

Re: [prometheus-developers] Docker images from scratch

Another option is we could fully build our own busybox binary, with the necessary fixes. I'm somewhat in favor of going distroless. With a large number of users using our container images in Kubernetes, it's less necessary to include busybox, as they can attach userspace sidecar containers. On

Re: [prometheus-developers] Docker images from scratch

Is it possible to use the scratch image with Prometheus binary inside only? That would reduce the surface entirely. On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 at 13:26 Julien Pivotto wrote: > Hello, > > From time to time we get users reporting that the docker image we use to > build Prometheus contain a Busybox

[prometheus-developers] Docker images from scratch

Hello, >From time to time we get users reporting that the docker image we use to build Prometheus contain a Busybox vulnerability: https://github.com/prometheus/node_exporter/issues/1937 https://github.com/prometheus/prometheus/issues/8277 https://github.com/prometheus/prometheus/issues/7794 We

Re: [prometheus-developers] Add additional docker file

Oops, typos: I know the location that you mentioned, but it contains only Prometheus itself, the other parts that need and specially pushgateway, which isn't there or in RedHat catalog. In additional, it seems that the build system is different - using prow instead CircleCI. ב-יום ראשון, 31