Clients: Fix tools path in clients init script; #466 #471
Conversation
|
@bari12 probably worth a re-release of 39 for rucio-clients or hotfix release on docker hub |
| ADD --chown=user:user rucio.default.cfg /opt/user/rucio.default.cfg | ||
| ADD init_rucio.sh /etc/profile.d/rucio_init.sh | ||
| ADD --chown=user;user ./entrypoint.sh /opt/user/entrypoint.sh | ||
| COPY --chown=user:user rucio.default.cfg /opt/user/rucio.default.cfg | ||
| COPY init_rucio.sh /etc/profile.d/rucio_init.sh | ||
| COPY --chown=user:user ./entrypoint.sh /opt/user/entrypoint.sh |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: should be a different commit as it doesn't fall under the scope of fixing tools path in the clients init script
There was a problem hiding this comment.
couldn't test without the chown fix. I think some amount of linting is fine, this is not changing the applied logic.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I understand, but I would argue that this does not count as linting since ADD and COPY are two different commands
There was a problem hiding this comment.
They are different commands, but similar and I believe the similarity is a flaw in the Dockerfile reference. Without going into too much detail: The resulting logic in this change is the same and to clarify that we want to copy and not extract any files, COPY is more specific here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
From those docs:
ADD and COPY are functionally similar
I would argue that "functionally similar" implies that there might potentially be a difference in functionality, and thus should be considered a functional change, even if we expect the functionality to remain the same in this case.
Even if this were not a functional change, this is still a different change compared to "Fix tools path in clients init script", so in my opinion it should be in a different commit
3 participants
Also changed ADD to COPY and fixed chown (just me linting the file).
Fixes #466