Skip to content

Fix for BusyBox 1.30 (Alpine 3.10) and above #68

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Fix for BusyBox 1.30 (Alpine 3.10) and above #68

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

kriskbx
Copy link

@kriskbx kriskbx commented Jul 1, 2019

First and foremost: Thanks a lot for this awesome tool. Been using it a lot lately. <3

Starting with BusyBox 1.30 the timeout command doesn't need the -t option anymore and therefore wait-for-it breaks on these systems:

/ # ./wait-for-it.sh 127.0.0.1:80
timeout: unrecognized option: t
BusyBox v1.30.1 (2019-06-12 17:51:55 UTC) multi-call binary.

Usage: timeout [-s SIG] SECS PROG ARGS

To fix that I added a check that removes the -t option for BusyBox versions 1.30 and up.

webflo added a commit to ueberbit/wait-for-it that referenced this pull request Jul 2, 2019
Fix for BusyBox 1.30 (Alpine 3.10) and above
@cmur2
Copy link

cmur2 commented Aug 13, 2019

It would be so great to have support for Alpine 3.10 👍

@neumachen
Copy link

@vishnubob looks good dude. Perhaps merge?

@KrakenTyio
Copy link

KrakenTyio commented Aug 21, 2019

I think this MG is not valid for new and old version.
When i upgrade by MG it start work for newest alpine, but for old it start skiping timeout and print something like this

XYZ:7489
timeout: can't execute '120': No such file or directory
wait-for-it.sh: timeout occurred after waiting 120 seconds for XYZ:7489

only valid syntax on old container in docker for node12-alpine is

../tool/wait-for-it.sh ${DB_TARGET}:${DB_PORT} --timeout=0 --strict -- npm start

@blaskovicz
Copy link

@kriskbx can you please rebase?

@blaskovicz
Copy link

actually, was this fixed via ed77b63

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.

5 participants