-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6.4k
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
Calico: add wireguard support for Rocky Linux 9 #9287
Calico: add wireguard support for Rocky Linux 9 #9287
Conversation
Hi @krystianmlynek. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
CI Failure does not seem to be related to PR's change:
|
Thanks @krystianmlynek , |
You can use |
73f82df
to
5cefff1
Compare
Rocky 9(and CentOS 9 probably too) does not require enabling epel, wireguard-tools package is present in the AppStream repo. Not sure if anything else needs to be updated 🤔 |
CI passed(https://gitlab.com/kargo-ci/kubernetes-sigs-kubespray/-/pipelines/643833194) but for some reason GitHub shows some jobs as in progress. |
/ok-to-test |
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.
@krystianmlynek All good I've resync jobs, thank you 👍
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: floryut, krystianmlynek The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
What type of PR is this?
/kind bug
What this PR does / why we need it:
Pretty much the same as #8625
Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?: