Skip to content

common: no slirp for podman6#393

Draft
lsm5 wants to merge 5 commits intocontainers:mainfrom
lsm5:podman6-no-slirp
Draft

common: no slirp for podman6#393
lsm5 wants to merge 5 commits intocontainers:mainfrom
lsm5:podman6-no-slirp

Conversation

@lsm5
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@lsm5 lsm5 commented Oct 16, 2025

See individual commits.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the common Related to "common" package label Oct 16, 2025
@packit-as-a-service
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Packit jobs failed. @containers/packit-build please check.

@lsm5 lsm5 force-pushed the podman6-no-slirp branch from 57c62b9 to 92c00a9 Compare October 16, 2025 13:19
@Luap99 Luap99 added the podman 6 breaking changes that should go only into podman 6 only label Oct 16, 2025
@lsm5 lsm5 force-pushed the podman6-no-slirp branch 2 times, most recently from db2cffc to 90bb692 Compare October 21, 2025 18:07
@lsm5 lsm5 mentioned this pull request Oct 22, 2025
@lsm5 lsm5 force-pushed the podman6-no-slirp branch from 90bb692 to 49f1c83 Compare October 25, 2025 13:39
@lsm5 lsm5 changed the title [WIP] common: no slirp for podman6 common: no slirp for podman6 Oct 25, 2025
@lsm5 lsm5 marked this pull request as ready for review October 25, 2025 13:43
@lsm5 lsm5 force-pushed the podman6-no-slirp branch from 49f1c83 to f3f043f Compare October 25, 2025 22:09
@mtrmac
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

mtrmac commented Oct 30, 2025

(I didn’t read the changes yet) it looks like this would benefit from rebasing now that #417 is merged.

@lsm5 lsm5 force-pushed the podman6-no-slirp branch from f3f043f to 7fb7ca5 Compare October 31, 2025 14:26
@lsm5
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

lsm5 commented Oct 31, 2025

Rebased. Good for another look. Thanks.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@mtrmac mtrmac left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

(I have absolutely no idea whether we want to do this or why we are doing this, I’m only looking at the mechanism of the removal.)

config2, err := newLocked(&Options{}, &paths{etc: "testdata/containers_default.conf"})
// Then
gomega.Expect(err).ToNot(gomega.HaveOccurred())
gomega.Expect(config2.Network.DefaultRootlessNetworkCmd).To(gomega.Equal("slirp4netns"))
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think we might still want to retain a test that the option can be changed by a config file — just maybe use a this-is-not-a-valid-command value?

@lsm5 lsm5 marked this pull request as draft November 5, 2025 18:44
@lsm5
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

lsm5 commented Nov 5, 2025

Best to proceed with this only after initial obvious removals from Podman repo.

lsm5 added 5 commits April 6, 2026 09:10
Signed-off-by: Lokesh Mandvekar <lsm5@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Lokesh Mandvekar <lsm5@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Lokesh Mandvekar <lsm5@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Lokesh Mandvekar <lsm5@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Lokesh Mandvekar <lsm5@redhat.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

common Related to "common" package podman 6 breaking changes that should go only into podman 6 only

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants