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

Replace /usr/local/sbin/unminimize with unminimize in apt #1567

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

tom-reinders
Copy link

Fixes #1566

/usr/local/sbin/unminimize has been remove and has been replaced with unminimize in apt

docker-library/official-images#17708 (comment)
https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/oracular-oriole-release-notes/44878#unminimize-33

Copy link

Copy link

@@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ jobs:
strategy:
matrix:
release: ['16.04', '18.04', '20.04', '22.04', '23.10', '24.04']
fail-fast: false
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@travier opitions on fail-fast? I'm torn :)

Copy link
Author

@tom-reinders tom-reinders Oct 18, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If this had been set like i do now only 24.04 would have fail and the rest not, now they all got cancelled for no reason at all.

Why break all break all releases if only 1 is broken?

It's also better for if there where 2 releases to fail because if not set then we would only notice it after we fixed the first.

In this setup of the GitHub action I don't know any reasons against setting this setting.
Do you have any reasons?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, it does make sense :)

@@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ jobs:
strategy:
matrix:
release: ['16.04', '18.04', '20.04', '22.04', '23.10', '24.04']
fail-fast: false
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, it does make sense :)

...if one of the releases fails, let other releases build and publish.

Signed-off-by: Tom Reinders <[email protected]>
@Jmennius
Copy link
Collaborator

I've reworded and squashed commits, removed .idea gitignore.
This is good to go IMO.

@Jmennius Jmennius requested a review from travier October 20, 2024 21:02
@Jmennius Jmennius self-assigned this Oct 20, 2024
@Jmennius
Copy link
Collaborator

Hmm, looking at how Github notifies about scheduled workflows...

Notifications for scheduled workflows are sent to the user who initially created the workflow. If a different user updates the cron syntax in the workflow file, subsequent notifications will be sent to that user instead. If a scheduled workflow is disabled and then re-enabled, notifications will be sent to the user who re-enabled the workflow rather than the user who last modified the cron syntax.

So if I want to receive notification I should be the one to be the last editor or enabled of the workflow... this is hilarious, there is no way to set it as a configuration.
I'm thinking, with your permission, I can change the authorship on that commit that touches the workflow... but then there is another PR that will soon touch it again :(

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.

ubuntu-toolbox 24.04 build is broken and image is missing from quay.io repo
2 participants