Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[skip-ci] RPM: move netavark deps to netavark package #2099

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 5, 2024

Conversation

lsm5
Copy link
Member

@lsm5 lsm5 commented Jul 25, 2024

iptables and nftables are best handled in netavark package.
Ref: containers/netavark#1033

@lsm5 lsm5 marked this pull request as ready for review July 25, 2024 13:22
@lsm5
Copy link
Member Author

lsm5 commented Jul 25, 2024

@jnovy @rhatdan @Luap99 @mheon PTAL

@lsm5
Copy link
Member Author

lsm5 commented Jul 25, 2024

Strange, lack of iptables is causing centos-stream-9 failures on https://github.com/containers/container-selinux/pull/321/checks?check_run_id=27912263135 but it's not causing rhel-9 failures.

centos 9 stream does seem to pull in libnftnl,libpcap and nftables but rhel9 does not.

Copy link
Member

@Luap99 Luap99 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Overall seems correct but in general it would be great the have the context of the problem as part of the commit message no some PR comment.

Also I still think we must move this requires over to netavark for at least RHEL 10 and newer, c-common is really the wrong place for that IMO

rpm/containers-common.spec Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
rpm/containers-common.spec Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@lsm5
Copy link
Member Author

lsm5 commented Jul 25, 2024

Also I still think we must move this requires over to netavark for at least RHEL 10 and newer, c-common is really the wrong place for that IMO

Yup, let's move iptables and nftables there.

I'll update this PR to remove them from here.

iptables and nftables are best handled in netavark package.
Ref: containers/netavark#1033

Signed-off-by: Lokesh Mandvekar <[email protected]>
@lsm5 lsm5 changed the title [skip-ci] RPM: iptables required on rhel 9 [skip-ci] RPM: move netavark deps to netavark package Jul 25, 2024
@rhatdan
Copy link
Member

rhatdan commented Jul 25, 2024

LGTM

@lsm5
Copy link
Member Author

lsm5 commented Jul 26, 2024

containers/netavark#1033 has now merged. Given we have netavark v1.12 expected next week, I'll include a change next week to bump the min netavark version as well in the containers-common rpm. But I think the current change here so far should be good to unblock copr and TMT tests.

@rhatdan @Luap99 @jnovy PTAL

@lsm5
Copy link
Member Author

lsm5 commented Jul 31, 2024

@TomSweeneyRedHat @rhatdan @Luap99 I would like to bump the netavark dependency to 1.12.0 (ETA tomorrow IIUC) in the rpm spec file for containers-common and have a new c/common v0.60.1 with this rpm change.

If that works for you all, I'll add the netavark dep change in this PR itself.

@lsm5
Copy link
Member Author

lsm5 commented Jul 31, 2024

@TomSweeneyRedHat @rhatdan @Luap99 I would like to bump the netavark dependency to 1.12.0 (ETA tomorrow IIUC) in the rpm spec file for containers-common and have a new c/common v0.60.1 with this rpm change.

Ugh I realized this dep change before netavark release cut will cause installation issues with the podman-next copr. So, I'd rather wait for nv release.

If you'd like to go ahead with this PR merge as-is, fine by me.

@Luap99
Copy link
Member

Luap99 commented Jul 31, 2024

Yes this should wait for the netavark release first to avoid any issues

@TomSweeneyRedHat
Copy link
Member

I'd say wait, and should we wait until 1.12.1?

@Luap99
Copy link
Member

Luap99 commented Sep 5, 2024

I think this is good to merge now as the recent netavark versions are already in stable fedora now, @lsm5 agree?

@lsm5
Copy link
Member Author

lsm5 commented Sep 5, 2024

I think this is good to merge now as the recent netavark versions are already in stable fedora now, @lsm5 agree?

I'd say so. netavark spec file in upstream main has these 2 packages mentioned as deps, so we should be safe here.

Copy link
Member

@Luap99 Luap99 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

/lgtm

Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci bot commented Sep 5, 2024

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: lsm5, Luap99

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-ci openshift-ci bot added the approved label Sep 5, 2024
@openshift-merge-bot openshift-merge-bot bot merged commit 5e4f6b0 into containers:main Sep 5, 2024
14 checks passed
@lsm5 lsm5 deleted the rpm-iptables branch September 5, 2024 13:52
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants