dustymabe added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
we talked about it today and the 29th sounds great!
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/322
ttomecek opened a new pull-request against the project: `atomic-wg` that you are following:
``
add me to the meeting invite
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/pull-request/332
davdunc opened a new pull-request against the project: `atomic-wg` that you are following:
``
Update meeting-people.txt
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/pull-request/334
jasonbrooks reported a new issue against the project: `atomic-wg` that you are following:
``
as discussed in https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2017-09-06/fedora_atomic…:
```
17:14:14 <jberkus> jbrooks: there was also a a request for two example dockerfiles, complete
17:14:22 <jberkus> one simple service, and one complex one
17:14:36 <jberkus> let's maybe create a ticket for that
17:14:57 <maxamillion> +1
17:15:07 <jbrooks> Don't we at least have a simple example in the container guidelines?
17:15:21 <kushal> jbrooks, maybe a better big application :)
17:15:25 <maxamillion> I think the example used for the workshop is a perfect "simple one" ... not sure it gets much more simple than the bc calculator
17:15:42 <ksinny> jbrooks: Is there any documentation to follow up on container workshop? couldn't attend it becasue of clashing workshop (Alternative arches debugging issues) which I was part of part of.
17:15:56 <ksinny> sorry, jberkus ^
17:16:12 <jberkus> jbrooks: we don't actually
17:16:25 <jberkus> and the complex example (postgres) isn't end-to-end
17:16:40 <jbrooks> #action jbrooks to create issue for adding examples to container guidelines
```
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/338
sumantrom added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
@dustymabe there is a Kernel Test day on 27th , can you guys please make it 29th or 30th? If people are feeling its too soon , I am okay with delaying this till oct 2nd week. Thoughts?
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/322
miabbott reported a new issue against the project: `atomic-wg` that you are following:
``
The `HEAD` of the branches returns a commit when you `curl` them, but an inspection of the entire `ostree log` on each branch can't find said commit. This could cause problems when folks try to deploy by commit.
updates-testing:
```
# curl -f https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/atomic/26/refs/heads/fedora/26/x86_64/te…
f5cc5928cf44a11b93276c95a3f7ff4eb39a545575b65876cde21426e62d39f1
# ostree pull --commit-metadata-only --depth=-1 fedora-atomic:fedora/26/x86_64/testing/atomic-host
33 metadata, 0 content objects fetched; 17 KiB transferred in 5 seconds
# ostree log fedora/26/x86_64/testing/atomic-host | head
commit f53bb0efacc0959044ecc6a14b1751d59ba0e675f1804f29af801282c8e812a1
Date: 2017-09-15 04:09:51 +0000
Version: 26.103
(no subject)
# ostree log fedora/26/x86_64/testing/atomic-host | grep f5cc5928cf44a11b93276c95a3f7ff4eb39a545575b65876cde21426e62d39f1
#
```
updates:
```
# curl -f https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/atomic/26/refs/heads/fedora/26/x86_64/up…
f6378bcfdbf3264267f56bb05954aec5dd363b9b4a116ef28fd3a4ff20af3639
# ostree pull --commit-metadata-only --depth=-1 fedora-atomic:fedora/26/x86_64/updates/atomic-host
78 metadata, 0 content objects fetched; 32 KiB transferred in 10 seconds
# ostree log fedora/26/x86_64/updates/atomic-host | head
commit ec84d8b30ee5de761c19193717de54b2c33fd07e02b51a6b1855815c91f4e81a
Date: 2017-08-31 22:18:45 +0000
Version: 26.117
(no subject)
commit 25369a650e2fc90f3424c38e0d2e2f7cca317b62d6fcb0c49321178c8e4c3fc5
Date: 2017-08-28 15:53:40 +0000
Version: 26.116
(no subject)
# ostree log fedora/26/x86_64/updates/atomic-host | grep f6378bcfdbf3264267f56bb05954aec5dd363b9b4a116ef28fd3a4ff20af3639
#
```
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/337
miabbott reported a new issue against the project: `atomic-wg` that you are following:
``
Sometime within the last 24 hrs (I think) the F27 branch for Atomic Host got reset.
Previously there were multiple commits on the branch, but as of today there is only one commit from Sept 1.
```
# ostree remote add --no-gpg-verify custom https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/compose/atomic/27/
[root@fedora26ah-dev ~]# ostree pull --commit-metadata-only --depth=-1 custom:fedora/27/x86_64/atomic-host
2 metadata, 0 content objects fetched; 775 B transferred in 1 seconds
[root@fedora26ah-dev ~]# ostree log fedora/27/x86_64/atomic-host
commit fb3870488a644e179ba2ac587ee693ce4203e703e3e39c67257f479a1e28bf1c
Date: 2017-09-01 16:41:54 +0000
Version: 27.20170901.n.1
(no subject)
```
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/336
miabbott reported a new issue against the project: `atomic-wg` that you are following:
``
It looks like the most recent F26AH release (26.120) has GPG verification turned on in the remote config, but the older commits are not signed.
```
# cat /etc/ostree/remotes.d/fedora-atomic.conf
[remote "fedora-atomic"]
url=https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/atomic/26/
gpg-verify=true
gpgkeypath=/etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-26-primary
# rpm-ostree status
State: idle
Deployments:
● fedora-atomic:fedora/26/x86_64/atomic-host
Version: 26.120 (2017-09-05 00:05:09)
Commit: 0b0127864022dd6ffad1a183241fbd5482ef5a1642ff3c8751c2e6cae6070b1a
GPGSignature: Valid signature by E641850B77DF435378D1D7E2812A6B4B64DAB85D
# rpm-ostree deploy 26.119
Resolving version '26.119'
1 metadata, 0 content objects fetched; 569 B transferred in 1 seconds
error: Commit ec84d8b30ee5de761c19193717de54b2c33fd07e02b51a6b1855815c91f4e81a: GPG verification enabled, but no signatures found (use gpg-verify=false in remote config to disable)
```
Can we sign the older commits after the fact so users don't run into this?
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/330
walters added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
One thing that came up is we might be able to hack the "override" path via working around the `fedora-release` and `fedora-modular-release` package conflicts.
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/312