On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 02:57:40PM -0500, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>...
> uploaded:
> https://tracker.debian.org/news/1227019/accepted-golang-github-containers-psgo-152-1-source-into-unstable/
>
> Tests on mips appreciated. If you can, let me know if rootless podman works
> on mips!
I was not plan
On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 3:01 PM Paul Gevers wrote:
> Unfortunately I believe we're not really in the position to advise you
> on the matter at hand as there are obviously pro's and con's for both
> side which require detailed knowledge to balance them. It seems to me
> that your having a decent di
Hi Reinhard,
On 25-01-2021 02:02, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> I'm not really sure if this update required formal approval by the
> release team, but I'd really appreciate your input in any case.
It doesn't, except that we wrote this in the freeze policy:
"""
No large/disruptive changes
Any change
On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 11:54 AM Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 09:08:36PM -0500, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> >...
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 7:15 PM Dmitry Smirnov
> wrote:
> >...
> > A low-effort workaround could be to add a build-dependency on podman to
> > prevent
> > it from bui
On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 09:08:36PM -0500, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>...
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 7:15 PM Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
>...
> A low-effort workaround could be to add a build-dependency on podman to
> prevent
> it from building on mipsen. A better fix could be to patch podman to build
> on
On Tuesday, 2 February 2021 4:18:02 PM AEDT Anthony Fok wrote:
> Would both podman 2 and podman 3 be a possibility?
> I.e., we could keep the existing "podman" package at 2.1.1, while
> creating a new "podman3" or "podman-3" package?
>
> Feasible solution? :-)
IMHO definitely not worth the effor
Dear all,
Would both podman 2 and podman 3 be a possibility?
I.e., we could keep the existing "podman" package at 2.1.1, while
creating a new "podman3" or "podman-3" package?
This way, both the stable podman 2 and the new podman 3 can be
released for Debian 11.
The two packages will likely confli
Hi Reinhard,
Thank you for your concerns, feedback and kind words.
On Tuesday, 2 February 2021 12:04:35 PM AEDT Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> The thing is, this thread didn't
> convince me so far that nomad-driver-podman with the varlink interface
> provides as much value as I wish it had.
Fair eno
On Mon, Feb 1, 2021 at 4:58 PM Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
>
> > The fact that as has been mentioned in this thread a) bullseye is around
> > the corner b) nomad-driver-podman isn't even in testing right now, c)
> > podman itself is a much more popular package than nomad-driver-podman
> > (or nomad for
On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 05:29:37PM -0500, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 5:03 PM Antonio Terceiro
> wrote:
>
> > FWIW I have been using podman 3.0.0~rc1 from experimental for a few days
> > and haven't noticed anything wrong with it. I hope we can have that
> > version in bulls
Hi Faidon,
On Tuesday, 2 February 2021 4:37:14 AM AEDT Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> 2) upgrading both nomad-driver-podman and podman to their latest
> upstream releases. These are seemingly compatible with each other, but
> breaking one particular use case, which while niche, happens to be
> unfortun
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 06:47:25AM -0500, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On the tradeoff "podman 3.0 with docker-compose" support vs.
> a "nomad driver for podman", I see more value for (more of)
> our users for the newer podman. I base that on popcon numbers:
>
> - nomand: 35
> - nomad-driver-podman
On Monday, 1 February 2021 8:07:36 AM AEDT Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Have you considered keeping your NFS share with the OCI images,
> but using a registry just for distribution to your cluster?
> This way your registry is basically just a cache.
All the down sides and no benefits. Space creep wou
On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 10:33 PM Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
>
> > > No it hasn't... :( There is a serious regression:
> > > https://github.com/hashicorp/nomad-driver-podman/issues/69
> >
> > I'm having a hard time considering this a "serious" regression. The
> problem
> > as far as I understand is t
On Sunday, 31 January 2021 7:29:16 PM AEDT Shengjing Zhu wrote:
> I do run a private registry with my CI, many images are pushed and
> deleted daliy. But I haven't noticed disk space leaks.
Upstream have many bugs about that... Here are just a few (I've seen more
of those...):
https://github.co
On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 11:33 AM Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
[...]
> Do you have experience operating local container registry??
> I have and I can tell that it is not fun, to say the least. Docker registry
> leaks disk space because it does not garbage collect some images...
Is there a known bug numbe
On Sunday, 31 January 2021 1:08:36 PM AEDT Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> A low-effort workaround could be to add a build-dependency on podman to
> prevent it from building on mipsen.
Thank you for advise. I shall do that to allow migration.
> > No it hasn't... :( There is a serious regression:
> >
trimming cc-list
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 7:15 PM Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Monday, 25 January 2021 10:47:25 PM AEDT Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > It seems that https://packages.qa.debian.org/n/nomad-driver-podman.html
> > has never made it to testing, which makes me wonder whether
> > it'll make
On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 5:03 PM Antonio Terceiro
wrote:
> FWIW I have been using podman 3.0.0~rc1 from experimental for a few days
> and haven't noticed anything wrong with it. I hope we can have that
> version in bullseye.
>
Me too.
Dear release team, do you have any opinion on this topic?
t
On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 08:02:26PM -0500, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Dear release-team,
>
> I'm proposing to have podman 3.0 in debian/bullseye. As maintainer of the
> package, I'm convinced this is a good step for Debian because:
>
> - podman 3.0 will be included in RHEL 8.4, which will be relea
On Monday, 25 January 2021 10:47:25 PM AEDT Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> It seems that https://packages.qa.debian.org/n/nomad-driver-podman.html
> has never made it to testing, which makes me wonder whether
> it'll make it to bullseye.
Nothing should stop it from getting to "testing". It was blocked
On Sun, Jan 24, 2021, 21:52 Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Monday, 25 January 2021 12:02:26 PM AEDT Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > - Podman 3 drops the legacy varlink interface. To the best of my
> > knowledge, there are no packages in debian/testing that would require
> > varlink (please correct me if
On Monday, 25 January 2021 12:02:26 PM AEDT Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> - Podman 3 drops the legacy varlink interface. To the best of my
> knowledge, there are no packages in debian/testing that would require
> varlink (please correct me if I'm wrong here). Not having to support
> varlink in Debian
Dear release-team,
I'm proposing to have podman 3.0 in debian/bullseye. As maintainer of the
package, I'm convinced this is a good step for Debian because:
- podman 3.0 will be included in RHEL 8.4, which will be released in May
2021. I expect security support for podman in Debian to become
sign
24 matches
Mail list logo
