-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.1k
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 version and git commit at compile time #244
add version and git commit at compile time #244
Conversation
this is part one in a series to get debs and rpms build 😇 |
This will likely fix #203.
|
Ah nice I will make this get the latest tag instead :) |
@LK4D4 looking at your comment from the issue linked i am going to propose the following:
then we will never need a version file again, and we can do this all in the greatest language ever, bash |
@@ -26,7 +35,7 @@ install: | |||
cp runc /usr/local/bin/runc | |||
|
|||
clean: | |||
rm runc | |||
rm runc || true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You can get unfailable removal with rm -f runc
. No need for the true
fallback.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the intention of the author is that " if the file runc is non-existed, it shouldn't fail".
if so, I prefer to
test ! -e runc || rm runc
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 07:56:45PM -0700, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
- rm runc
- rm runc || true
I think the intention of the author is that " if the file runc is
non-existed, it shouldn't fail".
rm(1) has:
-f, --force
ignore nonexistent files and arguments, never prompt
so there's no need for anything fancier than ‘rm -f runc’.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
i will update this tomorrow, you all can chill ;)
On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 8:24 PM, W. Trevor King notifications@github.com
wrote:
In Makefile
#244 (comment):@@ -26,7 +35,7 @@ install:
cp runc /usr/local/bin/runcclean:
- rm runc
- rm runc || true
On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 07:56:45PM -0700, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > - rm runc
- rm runc || true I think the intention of the author is that " if the
file runc is non-existed, it shouldn't fail".
rm(1) has:
… <#14faafbb7d161b07_>
-f, --force ignore nonexistent files and arguments, never prompt so
there's no need for anything fancier than ‘rm -f runc’.—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/opencontainers/runc/pull/244/files#r38888021.
@jfrazelle then how do we build without |
@tianon wdyt about hitting github.com instead then? |
Signed-off-by: Jessica Frazelle <acidburn@docker.com>
f3a193e
to
901ca27
Compare
That'd be alright (not stellar but workable), but how do we know which
version on GitHub corresponds to the source we have locally on disk from a
source tarball?
|
ugh ya thats true, idk... maybe not having a VERSION file is not the best way I just know in #203 that was the suggestion :/ |
Alternatively, we could publish our own source tarballs with a generated
VERSION file in them, but that's even more work at release time than it's
worth IMO.
|
im so confused... what should we do haha |
@tianon why u gotta be so confusing? ;) So what's the plan here? |
Ok, let me be a bit more verbose then. 😄 I see a few options here.
This PR most closely aligns with 1 as-is, which is fine, but will definitely need some way for distros to specify the version number since they won't build with I'd put my personal vote on 2 (because it's the most balanced option), but I won't be responsible for maintaining the file so IMO my vote doesn't carry a lot of weight in this case. 😄 |
@jfrazelle you might want to look at my alternative in #404.. pulling the version from opencontainers/specs/version.go this might be what @tianon was talking about? Cheers. |
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:13:21AM -0800, Mike Brown wrote:
Binding the runC version to the spec version seems like it would make
But like @tianon, I'm not going to be maintaining the releases, so my |
Two versions, one for the oci container code/spec and one for the runc binary? Which check goes in the config.json the one for the spec or the one for the runc binary? Hmm.... |
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 11:09:56AM -0800, Mike Brown wrote:
The one for the spec goes in config.json. For example, if runC |
Fair enough... |
+1 on having decoupled versions. Pretty much like how docker handles the client/versioning API |
fix #203