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

BREAKING: repository structure change #782

Merged
merged 59 commits into from
Apr 29, 2024
Merged

BREAKING: repository structure change #782

merged 59 commits into from
Apr 29, 2024

Conversation

eitsupi
Copy link
Member

@eitsupi eitsupi commented Apr 21, 2024

Part of #776

  • Update Dockerfiles
    • Update main Dockerfiles
    • Update devel Dockerfiles
    • Update binder Dockerfiles
    • Update cuda Dockerfiles
    • Update extra Dockerfiles
  • Update docker-bake.json
    • Update main docker-bake.json (renamed from core)
    • Update devel docker-bake.json
    • Update binder docker-bake.json (renamed to extra)
    • Update cuda docker-bake.json (renamed to extra)
    • Update extra docker-bake.json (renamed to experimental)
  • Update documents
  • Update CI
    • Update Makefile
    • Update GHA yaml files
    • Update reports/wiki templates

@eitsupi eitsupi requested a review from cboettig April 21, 2024 12:54
@eitsupi
Copy link
Member Author

eitsupi commented Apr 21, 2024

@cboettig Sorry for the delay, but now that we can generate at least some Dockerfiles and bakefiles, could you please take a look at this?

build/scripts/generate-main-bakefiles.R Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
build/scripts/generate-main-dockerfiles.R Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@cboettig cboettig left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think everything here so far looks very solid!

Regarding the building last 2 versions: this all makes sense. But in this new setup is it still possible to occasionally build older versions in order to benefit from the ubuntu-lts security patches released for them?

build/scripts/generate-args.R Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@eitsupi
Copy link
Member Author

eitsupi commented Apr 21, 2024

But in this new setup is it still possible to occasionally build older versions in order to benefit from the ubuntu-lts security patches released for them?

This is only possible for images that have the exact same structure as the most recent images.

For example, r-ver is fine for all versions, but rstudio cannot go back beyond a certain point because it becomes impossible to build linux/arm64 platform at some point.

@eitsupi
Copy link
Member Author

eitsupi commented Apr 22, 2024

@cboettig Do you think geospatial-ubuntugis is still needed?
I would like to remove this as I don't think any work has been done on these images in the last few years.

@eitsupi eitsupi marked this pull request as ready for review April 29, 2024 13:35
@eitsupi
Copy link
Member Author

eitsupi commented Apr 29, 2024

Let's merging for now...

@eitsupi eitsupi merged commit 8417113 into master Apr 29, 2024
23 of 30 checks passed
@eitsupi eitsupi deleted the overhaul branch April 29, 2024 13:53
eitsupi added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 30, 2024
eitsupi added a commit that referenced this pull request May 1, 2024
A follow up for #782

I was looking at the wiki and realized that I had forgotten to set the
LANG environment variable for rocker/r-ver.
@shug0131
Copy link

shug0131 commented Dec 6, 2024

I forked from this repo about a year ago https://github.com/shug0131/rocker-versioned2/ . This basically adds a layer on top of rocker with extra packages, plus adds some extra libraries to allow the basic UAT to pass. But it is anchored to the old version. How would you recommend I go about merging it back with your changes to the repo structure? Would there be a way to avoid forking and making my repo copy-edit directly from the main repo ?

@eitsupi
Copy link
Member Author

eitsupi commented Dec 6, 2024

How would you recommend I go about merging it back with your changes to the repo structure? Would there be a way to avoid forking and making my repo copy-edit directly from the main repo ?

I do not understand the intent of your question.
I don't think we can adopt the changes because the previous repository structure would not be able to generate the Dockerfiles as they are now.

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.

4 participants