-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18
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
Updated base image to support Multi arch #13
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Updated base image , as it is multi-arch Signed-off-by: Modassar Rana <[email protected]>
Updated base image which is multi-arch & builds successfully for all arch Signed-off-by: Modassar Rana <[email protected]>
Minio pod is coming up succesfully while deploying modelmesh on s390x
|
/assign @rafvasq |
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.
Thanks @modassarrana89. Leaving a couple of links to relevant work here as we look into this more. Based on these references, I'm assuming that there might more be to this update than it seems:
I agree , it would be great if you can validate the change . For me , its working fine & is multi-arch compared to the old base image which is not multi-arch |
As expected from more recent Minio versions:
Thus, the image is not really usable. I don't think we can accept the PR as is. |
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.
Thanks @israel-hdez for your review!
As expected from more recent Minio versions:
- The container image builds correctly.
- When running the built container, it starts correctly.
- Inspecting inside the container filesystem, it reveals that the example models are copied correctly.
- Interacting with the minio service using the mc CLI, shows the expected bucket exists, and the expected directory tree is there.
- Unfortunately, all directories are empty; i.e. there are no files, just the directories.
Thus, the image is not really usable. I don't think we can accept the PR as is.
@modassarrana89 can you take a look at PR #8 and make equivalent changes to this PR, indicating @bdattoma as a co-author!
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED
This pull-request has been approved by: *modassarrana89*
**Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label**, please ask for approval from rafvasq by writing `/assign @rafvasq` in a comment. For more information see:[The Kubernetes Code Review Process](https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/guide/owners.md#the-code-review-process).
The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
ok. |
Signed-off-by: Modassar Rana <[email protected]>
@israel-hdez @ckadner I have updated the base image ( multi-arch ) & verified on x86 + s390x , files are getting created . Directory are not empty .
|
@israel-hdez I have update the changes & directories are not empty . I have tested & verified the output in my environment as shown in above comments . Please cross verify once & approve PR if OK. |
@israel-hdez Please review the changes |
@ckadner @israel-hdez @rafvasq Please review the change . |
Base image in the dockerfile is compliant to amd64 only
Updated it with the multi-arch & tested that it is building multi-arch successfully
Fixes #12