Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Mar 13, 2020. It is now read-only.

Remove /pljava before cloning#5

Open
MichelKraaij wants to merge 1 commit into
pegasystems:masterfrom
MichelKraaij:patch-1
Open

Remove /pljava before cloning#5
MichelKraaij wants to merge 1 commit into
pegasystems:masterfrom
MichelKraaij:patch-1

Conversation

@MichelKraaij
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Remove /pljava before cloning to prevent 'fatal: destination path 'pljava' already exists and is not an empty directory.'

Remove /pljava before cloning to prevent 'fatal: destination path 'pljava' already exists and is not an empty directory.'
@cdancy
Copy link
Copy Markdown

cdancy commented Sep 3, 2019

@MichelKraaij do things actually fail one way or another or just get an error message printed to stdout? We use this image here internally and things don't fail per se but I've honestly not checked the logs to see what is printed out which is why I'm asking.

@MichelKraaij
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

@cdancy I'm getting an actual fail. It stops building at that point. After adding the extra line, git clone starts and finishes without problems.

(however, the build stops later on at the infamous 'missing openjdk-8-jdk-headless' issue).

Comment thread Dockerfile

RUN apt-get update && \
apt-get --fix-missing -y --force-yes --no-install-recommends install git ca-certificates && \
rm -rf /pljava && \
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@cdancy cdancy Sep 3, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

So this directory should not exist before the line just below where we clone. How is it you're hitting this issue if we haven't yet cloned the repo? Maybe a stale docker cache or you're doing things in a non-standard way?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I haven't got a clue. It could be stale docker cache. Not sure how to verify that. Nevertheless, this could be a good fail-save. If it happened to my build, it could happen to someone else's build.

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If you don't mind can you provide the build command you are using? You should be able to use the --no-cache option to skip docker using any cache and get around your problem.

The change in question is safe just should be unnecessary is all.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

@MichelKraaij MichelKraaij Sep 4, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

docker build -t pega-database:8.3.0-225 .
I''ve tried running the above build command with --no-cache, but still get the same result.

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That is flipping weird and shouldn't be happening. I can't really explain how things could pop if the folder does not exist yet. The only thing that makes sense is something in the docker cache.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I agree. It shouldn't be happening. That folder shouldn't have been there in the first place. But I didn't create it manually. So it seems that it could be something that occurs (maybe even randomly) on machines. It's definitely weird.

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'll leave this PR open for a little while longer to see if we magically stumble upon something but I'm under the current assumption that this shouldn't be needed.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants