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

Add unix_socket directive to the "likely wanted changes" area #1333

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

qub
Copy link

@qub qub commented Apr 9, 2023

The default config places the control socket in /var/lib/headscale/headscale.sock, causing an error. As noted for the other files this area is not writable in the docker image. I also fixed a double space while I was at it.

I'm not sure if protocol is to also create an issue and link it to this, but please let me know and I'll do that if it's needed.

  • read the CONTRIBUTING guidelines
  • raised a GitHub issue or discussed it on the projects chat beforehand
  • added unit tests
  • added integration tests
  • updated documentation if needed
  • updated CHANGELOG.md

The default config places the control socket in /var/lib/headscale/headscale.sock, causing an error. As noted for the other files this area is not writable in the docker image. I also fixed a double space while I was at it.

I'm not sure if protocol is to also create an issue and link it to this, but please let me know and I'll do that if it's needed.
@kradalby
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi @qub, I think the more correct way to do this would be to create a mount for the socket, not to put it elsewhere, if not, you wont be able to access the headscale instance with the CLI outside of the container.

What the docs should probably say is to create a mount from /var/run/headscale to /var/run/headscale in the container.

@kradalby
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi! as part of #1473, we have reorganised a lot of the code.

To clear PRs that needs to be rebased or redone, we are closing open PRs that will require significant code change to be merged.

In addition, the issue of the PR might in some cases have been fixed, change or no longer relevant, so it would be great if this is considered as well.

Thank you for your contribution!

If it is still relevant and the PR is reopened, we will aim at getting the changes into the next release after the reorg if accepted.

@kradalby kradalby closed this Sep 24, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants