-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.4k
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
[dockers] change RPC, DBG dockers version: put RPG, DBG sign in build… #8920
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -840,7 +840,7 @@ $(addprefix $(TARGET_PATH)/, $(DOCKER_DBG_IMAGES)) : $(TARGET_PATH)/%-$(DBG_IMAG | |
$(eval export $(subst -,_,$(notdir $($*.gz_PATH)))_dbg_pkgs=$(shell printf "$(subst $(SPACE),\n,$(call expand,$($*.gz_DBG_APT_PACKAGES),RDEPENDS))\n" | awk '!a[$$0]++')) | ||
./build_debug_docker_j2.sh $* $(subst -,_,$(notdir $($*.gz_PATH)))_dbg_debs $(subst -,_,$(notdir $($*.gz_PATH)))_image_dbgs > $($*.gz_PATH)/Dockerfile-dbg.j2 | ||
j2 $($*.gz_PATH)/Dockerfile-dbg.j2 > $($*.gz_PATH)/Dockerfile-dbg | ||
$(call generate_manifest,$*,-dbg) | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Is it will change the docker image name or the package name? If no, please skip my comment. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Does not change docker image name nor package name. |
||
$(call generate_manifest,$*,dbg) | ||
# Prepare docker build info | ||
PACKAGE_URL_PREFIX=$(PACKAGE_URL_PREFIX) \ | ||
SONIC_ENFORCE_VERSIONS=$(SONIC_ENFORCE_VERSIONS) \ | ||
|
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.
What is the impact to the build result?
Is there a design of the version string?
If we keep
-
, seem it is just a parsing issue? #ClosedThere 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.
Yes, there is a desing for version string, we are following https://semver.org/. This was a flaw of initial implementation. I chose to put rpc with a dash, which in semver means that this is a pre-release version, which it is not. It causes an extension installation failure that requires syncd>=1.0.0 but according to semver rules 1.0.0-rpc is less then 1.0.0. With this change I put rpc sign as a build metadata part which solves an issue because 1.0.0+rpc satisfies the constraint >=1.0.0.
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.
Trying to learn from you.
How semver is accepted by Debian?
You mentioned that
Are they just by chance, or they are defined by semver rules and implemented by Debian or apt system?
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.
Debian does not follow semver. They are defined by semver rules and there are online tools to check https://semvercompare.azurewebsites.net/?version=1.0.0&version=1.0.0-rpc&version=1.0.0%252Brpc.
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.
Why
1.0.0-rpc
<1.0.0
<=1.0.0+rpc
? Is it just string comparison?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.
Here is a section defining this - https://semver.org/#spec-item-11.