-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
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
Create 2022.01 release #7658
Comments
So, one of the plans we had was to build the Installer binary for both Mac and Windows. Seemingly, because runc is only supported on Linux, when I run An excerpt # github.com/opencontainers/runc/libcontainer/cgroups
../../go/pkg/mod/github.com/opencontainers/[email protected]/libcontainer/cgroups/file.go:79:14: undefined: unix.Openat2
../../go/pkg/mod/github.com/opencontainers/[email protected]/libcontainer/cgroups/file.go:79:45: undefined: unix.OpenHow
../../go/pkg/mod/github.com/opencontainers/[email protected]/libcontainer/cgroups/file.go:100:18: undefined: unix.RESOLVE_BENEATH
../../go/pkg/mod/github.com/opencontainers/[email protected]/libcontainer/cgroups/file.go:100:41: undefined: unix.RESOLVE_NO_MAGICLINKS
../../go/pkg/mod/github.com/opencontainers/[email protected]/libcontainer/cgroups/file.go:101:17: undefined: unix.CGROUP2_SUPER_MAGIC
../../go/pkg/mod/github.com/opencontainers/[email protected]/libcontainer/cgroups/file.go:103:20: undefined: unix.RESOLVE_NO_XDEV
../../go/pkg/mod/github.com/opencontainers/[email protected]/libcontainer/cgroups/file.go:103:43: undefined: unix.RESOLVE_NO_SYMLINKS
../../go/pkg/mod/github.com/opencontainers/[email protected]/libcontainer/cgroups/v1_utils.go:155:9: undefined: Mount
../../go/pkg/mod/github.com/opencontainers/[email protected]/libcontainer/cgroups/v1_utils.go:163:87: undefined: Mount
../../go/pkg/mod/github.com/opencontainers/[email protected]/libcontainer/cgroups/v1_utils.go:191:37: undefined: Mount
../../go/pkg/mod/github.com/opencontainers/[email protected]/libcontainer/cgroups/file.go:103:43: too many errors What should our resolution be for this Any other suggestions? @corneliusludmann @csweichel |
I think there are some syntax sugar bits we can add to make the container route more friendly. For example, #6763 would allow folks to pipe the config in vs need to do mount directories across. So something like:
The entrypoint is mostly responsible for this magic.
I'm sure there are better examples but the redis entrypoint is fairly simple: https://github.com/docker-library/redis/blob/a04a6df0a45894e1a630db4e84e0c12c7bcf326a/6.2/docker-entrypoint.sh |
Summary
In order to improve the acceptance of Gitpod self-hosted by the community and enterprise users, a formalised and regular release cycle of the Gitpod Installer is critical. This will be the first release of the Installer binaries and will be the template for how the process will run in future.
Context
Currently, the process is to instruct the community to find a specific (and arbitrary) build in Werft and use the build ID from there.
Acceptance Criteria
A release of the Installer is made with binaries for all the supported architectures
In Scope
go tool dist list
):darwin/amd64darwin/arm64windows/386windows/amd642022.01
release in GitHub releases2022.01
tag2022.01
releaseOut of Scope
2022.02
releaseTasks
releases/2022.01
branch2022.01
tag./installer
etc and replace with downloaded binaryThe text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: