Update debian-base from Bookworm to Trixie by default - #4503
Conversation
|
Hi @wespanther. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Tip We noticed you've done this a few times! Consider joining the org to skip this step and gain Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. DetailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. |
|
/ok-to-test |
5f0966b to
dfa8257
Compare
|
/retest |
| - path: images/releng/ci/variants.yaml | ||
| match: "OS_CODENAME: 'trixie'" | ||
| - path: images/build/debian-base/Makefile | ||
| match: CONFIG\ \?=\ trixie |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit: CONFIG: 'trixie' in variants.yaml is not tracked by this entry, while the bookworm equivalent (CONFIG: 'bookworm') is tracked under "Debian: codename (default)" at line 376-377. Consider adding a refPath here for consistency:
- path: images/build/debian-base/variants.yaml
match: "CONFIG: 'trixie'"|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: BenTheElder, saschagrunert, wespanther The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here DetailsNeeds approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
What type of PR is this?
/kind feature
What this PR does / why we need it:
This is a follow up to github.com//pull/4501, which starts building Debian 13 (Trixie). This changes the Makefile to build using Trixie by default.
Bookworm is EoL, so often does not receive security patches. Many updated OS system packages (e.g. python) are also not available via the Debian sources.
Validated it successfully built locally using
make build.Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
N/A
Special notes for your reviewer:
N/A
Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?