centos7 image #119
centos7 image #119
Conversation
|
CC @conda-forge/core |
|
This is ready for review! |
linux-anvil-cos7-comp7/Dockerfile
Outdated
|
|
||
| # Set an encoding to make things work smoothly. | ||
| ENV LANG en_US.UTF-8 | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need
| ENV LANGUAGE=en_US.UTF-8 | |
as in
for something? If there is no counterargument, I'd suggest to unify this, i.e., either addLANGUAGE or remove it from the other images as well.https://www.gnu.org/software/gettext/manual/html_node/The-LANGUAGE-variable.html#The-LANGUAGE-variable
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think unifying these would be best as another PR targeted at this issue
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Then I'd just add it here and decide in another PR if it can be removed.
(Though not strong opinion, if you disagree.)
|
Thanks @mbargull - I also think think this is ready for another review |
|
Would it be possible to build this as a multi-arch image? If so, that would allow us to consolidate the ppc64le and aarch64 images in one image and thus close out issue ( #102 ). cc @jayfurmanek |
Possible yes, I assume. But that wouldn't be a prerequisite for this PR, I don't think. I've never built multiarch images but AFAIK it's "just metadata". Meaning you can lump different images for different architectures under the same name, but they are different images nonetheless. |
I would prefer this as well. The goal of this PR is not to rewrite our docker-image infrastructure. It is only to get a centos7 image up that we can use to build CDT packages against. |
.travis.yml
Outdated
| @@ -12,6 +12,11 @@ matrix: | |||
| - DOCKERIMAGE=linux-anvil-comp7 | |||
| - DOCKERTAG=jnlp-slave | |||
|
|
|||
| - os: linux | |||
| env: | |||
| - DOCKERIMAGE=linux-anvil-cos7 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are we happy with this naming?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fine/preferred by me (and suggested by @isuruf).
Do you want to suggest something else? In reference to the potential/future multi-arch image: Would you want a x86_64 suffix here (i.e., linux-anvil-cos7-x86_64) so linux-anvil-cos7 could unambiguously be the name of a multi-arch image?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am. We can also do linux-anvil:cos7
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I like @mbargull's idea as well. How about linux-anvil-x86_64:cos7?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Using linux-anvil-cos7-x86_64 sounds good.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That will cause issues with sorting I think.
I'm not able to follow. What "sorting", what "issues" with it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry it's kind of hard to explain. conda-smithy sorts variants. Unfortunately it does this with docker_images too. Maybe it shouldn't do that? However given the current conda-smithy behavior we are reliant on the sort order of docker_images being a specific way.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, I see. Well, smithy's inner workings aren't my strong suit -- I'll happily let you experts decide then ;).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jakirkham, can you open an issue in conda-smithy about the sorting? We should not sort them and use the order from the original config. (conda-build messes up the sorting, so we can sort them using the original config)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah I agree. Tried my best to describe the problem in issue ( conda-forge/conda-smithy#1183 ). Please fill in and/or correct it as needed, @isuruf 🙂
|
Shall we merge this then? 😉 |
|
Ok this is ready for review again! |
|
Thanks! |
|
Thanks @scopatz! 😄 |
New centos7 image for creating centos7 CDTs