The current approach of extracting the VERSION_ID field from
os-release(5) assumes that the value is not quoted. There's no
guarantee that this will be the case. It only happens to be so on
Fedora by chance, and is different on Ubuntu:
$ cat /etc/os-release
...
VERSION_ID="22.04"
...
This means that "22.04", including the double quotes, is read as the
value of VERSION_ID on Ubuntu, not 22.04. This is wrong because this
value can't be used as is in image and container names. There's no
image called quay.io/toolbx/ubuntu-toolbox:"22.04" and double quotes are
not allowed in container names.
Instead, use the same approach as profile.d/toolbox.sh and the old POSIX
shell implementation that doesn't rely on the quoting of the
os-release(5) values.
Fallout from b27795a03ehttps://github.com/containers/toolbox/pull/1320
The current approach of selecting all the os-release(5) fields that have
'ID' in their name (eg., ID, VERSION_ID, PLATFORM_ID, VARIANT_ID, etc.)
and then picking the first one, assumes that the ID field will always be
placed above the others in os-release(5). There's no guarantee that
this will be the case. It only happens to be so on Fedora by chance,
and is different on Ubuntu:
$ cat /etc/os-release
...
VERSION_ID="22.04"
...
ID=ubuntu
ID_LIKE=debian
...
This means that "22.04" is read as the value of ID on Ubuntu, which is
clearly wrong.
Instead, use the same approach as profile.d/toolbox.sh and the old POSIX
shell implementation that doesn't rely on the order of the os-release(5)
fields.
Fallout from 54a2ca1eadhttps://github.com/containers/toolbox/pull/1320
Ansible's 'shell' module is almost exactly like the 'command' module,
except that it runs the command through a command line shell so that
environment variables like HOSTNAME and operations like '*', '<' and '>'
work. None of those things are necessary are here. Hence, it's better
to use the 'command' module as elsewhere.
Note that, unlike Ansible's 'shell' module, the 'command' module doesn't
support inline scripts. So, each command needs to be in its own
separate task.
https://github.com/containers/toolbox/pull/1318
We wasted some time trying to get the tests running locally, when all we
were missing were the 'git submodule ...' commands.
Add some more obvious hints about this possible stumbling block.
Note that Bats cautions against printing outside the @test, setup* or
teardown* functions [1]. In this case, doing so leads to the first line
of the error output going missing, when using the pretty formatter for
human consumption:
$ bats --formatter pretty ./test/system
✗ setup_suite
Forgot to run 'git submodule init' and 'git submodule update' ?
bats warning: Executed 1 instead of expected 191 tests
191 tests, 1 failure, 190 not run
[1] https://bats-core.readthedocs.io/en/stable/writing-tests.htmlhttps://github.com/containers/toolbox/pull/1298
Signed-off-by: Matthias Clasen <mclasen@redhat.com>
The 000-setup.bats and 999-teardown.bats files were added [1] at a time
when Bats didn't offer any hooks for suite-wide setup and teardown.
That changed in Bats 1.7.0, which introduced the setup_suite and
teardown_suite hooks. These hooks make it easier to run a subset of the
tests, which is a good thing.
In the past, to run a subset of the tests, one had to do:
$ bats ./test/system/000-setup.bats ./test/system/002-help.bats \
./test/system/999-teardown.bats
Now, one only has to do:
$ bats ./test/system/002-help.bats
Commit e22a82fec8 already added a dependency on Bats >= 1.7.0.
Therefore, it should be exploited wherever possible to simplify things.
[1] Commit 54a2ca1eadhttps://github.com/containers/toolbox/issues/751
[2] Bats commit fb467ec3f04e322a
https://github.com/bats-core/bats-core/issues/39https://bats-core.readthedocs.io/en/stable/writing-tests.htmlhttps://github.com/containers/toolbox/pull/1317
Bats 1.7.0 emits a warning if a feature that is only available starting
from a certain version of Bats onwards is used without specifying that
version [1]:
BW02: Using flags on `run` requires at least BATS_VERSION=1.5.0. Use
`bats_require_minimum_version 1.5.0` to fix this message.
(from function `bats_warn_minimum_guaranteed_version' in file
/usr/lib/bats-core/warnings.bash, line 32,
from function `run' in file
/usr/lib/bats-core/test_functions.bash, line 227,
in test file test/system/001-version.bats, line 27)
Note that bats_require_minimum_version itself is only available from
Bats 1.7.0 [2]. Hence, even though the specific feature here (using
flags on 'run') only requires Bats >= 1.5.0, in practice Bats >= 1.7.0
is needed. Fortunately, commit e22a82fec8 already added a
dependency on Bats >= 1.7.0. So, there's nothing to worry about.
[1] Bats commit 82002bb6c1a5c418
https://github.com/bats-core/bats-core/issues/556https://bats-core.readthedocs.io/en/stable/warnings/BW02.html
[2] Bats commit 71d6b71cebc3d32b
https://github.com/bats-core/bats-core/issues/556https://bats-core.readthedocs.io/en/stable/warnings/BW02.htmlhttps://github.com/containers/toolbox/pull/1315
Commit e22a82fec8 already added a dependency on Bats >= 1.7.0,
which is present on Fedora >= 36. Therefore, it should be exploited
wherever possible to simplify things.
Earlier, when the line counts were checked only with Bats >= 1.7.0,
there was a need to separately check the whole standard error and
output streams with 'assert_output' for the tests to be useful on
Fedora 35, which only had Bats 1.5.0. Now that the line counts are
being checked unconditionally, there's no need for that anymore.
Note that bats_require_minimum_version itself is only available from
Bats 1.7.0 [1].
[1] Bats commit 71d6b71cebc3d32b
https://github.com/bats-core/bats-core/issues/556https://bats-core.readthedocs.io/en/stable/warnings/BW02.htmlhttps://github.com/containers/toolbox/pull/1314
This allows using the 'distro' option to create and enter Arch Linux
containers. Due to Arch's rolling-release model, the 'release' option
isn't required. If 'release' is used, the accepted values are 'latest'
and 'rolling'.
https://github.com/containers/toolbox/pull/1311
Operating system distributions like Arch Linux that follow a
rolling-release model don't have the concept of a release. The latest
snapshot is the only available release.
A subsequent commit will add built-in support for Arch Linux. Hence,
the code can no longer assume that every distribution will have a
matching release.
Note that just because an operating system distribution may not have the
concept of a release, it doesn't mean that it will accept an invalid
'release' option.
https://github.com/containers/toolbox/pull/1311
The VERSION_ID field in os-release(5) is optional [1]. It's absent on
Arch Linux, which follows a rolling-release model and uses the BUILD_ID
field instead:
BUILD_ID=rolling
A subsequent commit will add built-in support for Arch Linux. Hence,
the code to get the default release from the host operating system can
no longer assume the presence of the VERSION_ID field in os-release(5).
Note that the arch-toolbox image is tagged with 'latest', in accordance
with OCI conventions, not 'rolling' [2,3], which is the os-release(5)
BUILD_ID. Therefore, it will be wise to use 'latest' as the default
release on Arch Linux, to simplify how the default release matches with
the default image's tag. This means that a os-release(5) field can't be
used for the default release on Arch.
[1] https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/os-release.html
[2] Commit 2568528cb7https://github.com/containers/toolbox/pull/861
[3] Commit a4e5861ae5https://github.com/containers/toolbox/pull/1308https://github.com/containers/toolbox/pull/1303
Until now, the Arch Linux image was being published at
quay.io/toolbx-images/archlinux-toolbox:latest. This renames the image
to arch-toolbox [1] to match the os-release(5) ID on Arch, and changes
the location to quay.io/toolbx/arch-toolbox:latest.
Build and push when there are changes in the 'images/arch' directory
or in the GitHub workflow itself, as well as at 00:00 every Monday.
[1] Commit 2568528cb7https://github.com/containers/toolbox/pull/861https://github.com/containers/toolbox/pull/1308
Since Sericea is an official variant of Fedora, it should have an
official welcome message like the other ones.
https://github.com/containers/toolbox/pull/1293
Signed-off-by: Jakub Sierżęga <jakub.sierzega@comarch.com>
Until now, the Ubuntu images (versions 16.04, 18.04, 20.04, 22.04 and
22.10) were published at quay.io/toolbx-images/ubuntu-toolbox:22.04,
etc.. This changes the location to quay.io/toolbx/ubuntu-toolbox:22.04
and builds an image for Ubuntu 23.04 that was added recently [1].
Build and push when there are changes in the `images/ubuntu` directory
or in the GitHub workflow itself, as well as every other week (7th and
21st days of a month to be precise).
The toolbox(1) code and the system tests will be switched to the new
location after the first round of images are available.
[1] Commit 3cfb6bf888https://github.com/containers/toolbox/pull/1292https://github.com/containers/toolbox/pull/483
Signed-off-by: Ievgen Popovych <jmennius@gmail.com>
This is the definition of the arch-toolbox image for Arch Linux that
plays well with Toolbx.
Today, it's published at quay.io/toolbx-images/archlinux-toolbox:latest,
but the name of the published image will be changed to arch-toolbox [1]
to match the os-release(5) ID on Arch Linux. The convention of naming
the Toolbx images according to the os-release(5) ID is deeply ingrained
in the Toolbx code base. It will be better to keep things simple by
continuing that practice, instead of adding a one-off exception.
Maintenance of this image has been passed to Morten Linderud.
[1] https://github.com/toolbx-images/images/pull/82https://github.com/containers/toolbox/pull/861
This was recently introduced with `ubuntu-advantage-tools` and it tries
to poke at some system services introducing annoying delay and messages.
Even if the services are present (on Ubuntu host) and systemd is
accessible (rootful container) - that wouldn't be appropriate still.
https://github.com/containers/toolbox/pull/1291
Signed-off-by: Ievgen Popovych <jmennius@gmail.com>
This partly reflects the value of the 'maintainer' LABELs of the current
images. Oliver is the original author, but he has lots of other duties
these days, and wanted me to help him co-maintain the images.
Note that the toolbox image definitions for RHEL do need a maintainer
who is a Red Hat employee. Otherwise they won't be able to actually
build and publish the images at registry.access.redhat.com.
https://github.com/containers/toolbox/pull/1288
The phrase 'using a custom image' is awkward because it makes it sound
as if the image plays an important role in 'enter' and 'run'. That's
not true.
Also, titles are sweeter when they are shorter.
https://github.com/containers/toolbox/pull/1281
Signed-off-by: Nils Lindemann <nilslindemann@tutanota.com>
When a specific Toolbx container is selected by name for 'enter' and
'run', it's not necessary that the container was created using a custom
image. The container could have also been created using one of the
built-in images.
Secondly, the phrase 'using a custom image' is awkward because it makes
it sound as if the image plays an important role in 'enter' and 'run'.
That's not true.
Finally, titles are sweeter when they are shorter.
https://github.com/containers/toolbox/pull/1281
Signed-off-by: Nils Lindemann <nilslindemann@tutanota.com>
These are the definitions of the ubuntu-toolbox images for Ubuntus
16.04, 18.04, 20.04, 22.04 and 22.10 that play well with Toolbx. Such
as, password-less sudo, able to resolve its own hostname, SELinux is
masked off, etc.. At the moment, these are already published at
quay.io/toolbx-images/ubuntu-toolbox:22.04 and such.
https://github.com/containers/toolbox/pull/483https://github.com/containers/toolbox/pull/1284
Signed-off-by: Ievgen Popovych <jmennius@gmail.com>
fmt.Scanf [1] is fragile when it comes to space-separated input. It
stores successive space-separated values into successive arguments as
determined by the format string. This breaks with untrusted input that
can have an unknown number of space-separated values.
Here are some examples:
$ toolbox create
Image required to create toolbox container.
Download registry.fedoraproject.org/fedora-toolbox:39 (294.8MB)?
[y/N]: no no not at all
$ no not at all
bash: no: command not found...
$ toolbox create
Image required to create toolbox container.
Download registry.fedoraproject.org/fedora-toolbox:39 (294.8MB)?
[y/N]: foo bar
Download registry.fedoraproject.org/fedora-toolbox:39 (294.8MB)?
[y/N]: Download registry.fedoraproject.org/fedora-toolbox:39
(294.8MB)? [y/N]:
Instead this is what should happen:
$ toolbox create
Image required to create toolbox container.
Download registry.fedoraproject.org/fedora-toolbox:39 (294.8MB)?
[y/N]: no no not at all
Download registry.fedoraproject.org/fedora-toolbox:39 (294.8MB)?
[y/N]: foo bar
Download registry.fedoraproject.org/fedora-toolbox:39 (294.8MB)?
[y/N]:
Fallout from 936f22ff15
[1] https://pkg.go.dev/fmt#Scanfhttps://github.com/containers/toolbox/pull/1279
It's quite obvious what the corresponding code is doing, and it isn't
any harder to understand than the rest of the code that's not commented.
https://github.com/containers/toolbox/pull/1282
This is a quick sanity check with 'podman images' to ensure that all the
images are in place before running 'list'. Other tests already do this,
so this change makes these two tests consistent with the rest.
https://github.com/containers/toolbox/pull/1273
